Opinion
July 10, 1986
Appeal from the Family Court of Broome County (Whiting, Jr., J.).
The parties, who were married in 1982, separated in 1984. The most recent Family Court order in effect at the time that this proceeding was commenced provided that the parties would have joint custody of their minor child, with the child's principal place of residence being with respondent. Petitioner was granted certain visitation rights. Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to be awarded sole physical custody of the child. Family Court denied petitioner's application and ordered the continuation of joint custody. This appeal ensued.
The primary consideration in child custody cases is, of course, the best interest of the child (Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 93; Clarke v Clarke, 101 A.D.2d 911, 912). Joint custody is appropriate in cases where both parents are relatively stable and amicable and behave in a mature, civilized fashion (Braiman v Braiman, 44 N.Y.2d 584, 589-590; Matter of Sooy v Sooy, 101 A.D.2d 287, 288, affd 64 N.Y.2d 946). Here, the record clearly indicates that each party loves the child and is able to adequately care for him. Moreover, the joint custody arrangement is apparently working, and there is no indication that the parties are incapable of communicating with one another concerning their child (cf. Braiman v Braiman, supra, p 587; Matter of Bishop v Lansley, 106 A.D.2d 732, 733). As for any suggestion by petitioner that certain aspects of respondent's living situation render her unfit to have physical custody of the child, we note only that Family Court's determination was necessarily based upon its evaluation of the testimony, character and sincerity of the parties (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173), and that court's finding in such regard is to be accorded the greatest respect (see, Matter of Yeo v Cornaire, 91 A.D.2d 1153, 1154, affd 59 N.Y.2d 875). In short, the record provides ample support for Family Court's determination, which was well within its range of discretion (see, Matter of Gotham v Gotham, 102 A.D.2d 981, 982).
Order affirmed, without costs. Main, J.P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.