DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
When reviewing a custodial parent's request to relocate, the court's primary focus must be on the best interests of the child (see Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 739; Miller v. Pipia, 297 A.D.2d 362; Reilly v. Schmidt, 295 A.D.2d 436). Here, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the record provides a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant should remain in New York and not relocate to Florida with the parties' daughter.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for joint custody (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Tesler v. Tesler, 228 A.D.2d 491; Forzano v. Scuderi, 224 A.D.2d 385; Matter of Laura A.K. v. Timothy M., 204 A.D.2d 325).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.