The parties initially agreed to joint custody with the child to reside with the mother and the father to have liberal visitation. There has been acrimony between the parties which may have impinged upon the child's emotional and intellectual development (cf., Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946).
The trial court's findings are to be accorded great respect (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173), and the trial court was free to reject the opinions of both the Law Guardian and the court-appointed psychiatrist (see, State of New York ex rel. H.K. v M.S., 187 A.D.2d 50, 53). The child's preference was properly deemed not controlling because of the potential for influence having been exerted (see, O'Connor v O'Connor, 146 A.D.2d 909, 911). There was no showing of bias on the part of the court and it acted within its discretion in refusing rebuttal testimony (see, Capone v Gannon, 150 A.D.2d 749, 750).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.