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.