May 2, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.).
Ordered that the cross-appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 23, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated February 25, 1993 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the appellant.
It is well settled that the primary concern in a custody proceeding is the best interest of the child and what will best promote his or her welfare and happiness (see, Domestic Relations Law § 70; LaBow v. LaBow, 59 N.Y.2d 956; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171; Matter of George W.S. v. Donna S., 187 A.D.2d 657). Although joint custody is encouraged as a voluntary alternative (see, Braiman v. Braiman, 44 N.Y.2d 584, 589), it is appropriate only in cases "'where the parties involved are relatively stable, amicable parents who can behave in a mature, civilized fashion'" (Matter of George W.S. v Donna S., supra, at 658, quoting Trolf v. Trolf, 126 A.D.2d 544; see also, Janecka v. Franklin, 143 A.D.2d 731, 732). It is inappropriate, however, where the parties are antagonistic towards each other and have demonstrated an inability to cooperate on matters concerning the child (see, Bliss v. Ach, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 998; Braiman v. Braiman, supra).
Here, the record is replete with examples of hostility and antagonism between the parties, indicating that they were unable to put aside their differences for the good of the child. Given this factor, and given the mother's role as the primary care provider, sole custody was properly awarded to the mother (see, Matter of George W.S. v. Donna S., supra; Carr v. Carr, 171 A.D.2d 776).
The court also properly limited the father's visitation with his son to Sundays from 1:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. under the supervision of a certified social worker. The court's determination, based in part upon an in camera interview with the child and the corroborating testimony of a clinical psychologist, had a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, supra; Nacson v. Nacson, 166 A.D.2d 510; Alfano v. Alfano, 151 A.D.2d 530).
The father's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPLR 4017, 5501; Matter of Sowa v Looney, 23 N.Y.2d 329; People v. Johnson, 173 A.D.2d 852; Gunnarson v. State of New York, 95 A.D.2d 797), or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.