Opinion
Argued April 11, 2000.
May 30, 2000.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated March 9, 1999, as awarded custody of the parties' child to the defendant.
Mitchell Berstell, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Migdal, Pollack, Rosenkrantz, Migdal, LLP, New York, N Y (Lawrence W. Pollack and Jane R. Slavin of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The record in this case provides a sound and substantial basis for the custody determination (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89). Although both parties appear to be capable and loving parents, under the circumstances of this case, it is in the best interests of the subject child for the mother to have custody (see, Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727; Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, supra).
The Supreme Court was not required to accept the recommendations of the court-appointed psychologist (see, Matter of Hopkins v. Wilkerson, 255 A.D.2d 319; Matter of Alanna M. v. Duncan M., 204 A.D.2d 409). Notably, all of the experts found the mother to be a fit parent. The expert opinions in this case were not arbitrarily disregarded (see, Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114). Rather, the Supreme Court fully explained its reasons for rejecting the recommendations of the court-appointed psychologist, with which the law guardian did not agree. The Supreme Court's reasoning is supported by the record.
BRACKEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, ALTMAN AND McGINITY, JJ., concur.