Karl A. Scully, Mount Vernon, N.Y., for appellant. Johnson & Cohen, LLP, Pearl River, N.Y. (Leah E. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Lisa Goldman, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (IDV Part) (Walker, J.), entered January 31, 2013, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the parties' child, with certain visitation to her.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“The court's paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child” (Matter of Julie v. Wills, 73 A.D.3d 777, 777, 899 N.Y.S.2d 669;see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). “Because custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the trial court's findings, and such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Otero v. Nieves, 77 A.D.3d 756, 756–757, 908 N.Y.S.2d 603;see Matter of Blakeney v. Blakeney, 99 A.D.3d 898, 952 N.Y.S.2d 295;Matter of Gorsky v. Kessler, 78 A.D.3d 834, 911 N.Y.S.2d 129).
Here, the Supreme Court gave careful consideration to all relevant factors. While certain factors favored an award of custody to the mother, the Supreme Court's determination, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the child's best interests would be served by an award of sole custody to the father, is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Lawlor v. Eder, 106 A.D.3d 739, 966 N.Y.S.2d 92;Matter of Galanos v. Galanos, 28 A.D.3d 554, 816 N.Y.S.2d 90;Matter of Plaza v. Plaza, 305 A.D.2d 607, 759 N.Y.S.2d 368). Accordingly, the Supreme Court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal.
The mother's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rests partially on matter which is dehors the record and not properly before this Court on this appeal ( see Matter of Ruvolo v. Herrera, 62 A.D.3d 1012, 878 N.Y.S.2d 916;Matter of Rashawn L.B., 8 A.D.3d 267, 778 N.Y.S.2d 57). To the extent this claim is reviewable, the record, viewed in totality, shows that the mother received meaningful representation ( see Matter of Dylan Mc. [Michelle M. Mc.], 105 A.D.3d 1049, 1050, 964 N.Y.S.2d 209;Matter of Marra v. Hernandez, 102 A.D.3d 699, 700, 956 N.Y.S.2d 908;Matter of Larrier v. Williams, 84 A.D.3d 805, 806, 924 N.Y.S.2d 272).
The issues raised by the mother regarding a certain award of temporary custody to the father are academic. The temporary custody award is no longer of any effect, and any alleged defect in the temporary award does not render defective the permanent order awarding sole custody to the father, which was based upon a full and fair hearing ( see Haggerty v. Haggerty, 78 A.D.3d 998, 999, 911 N.Y.S.2d 639;Matter of Miller v. Shaw, 51 A.D.3d 927, 927–928, 859 N.Y.S.2d 666;Cucinello v. Cucinello, 234 A.D.2d 365, 366, 651 N.Y.S.2d 93).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.