Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Cynthia Domingo Foraste, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated April 14, 2011, as, after a hearing, denied his petition for sole custody of the subject child, and granted the mother's separate petition for sole custody of the subject child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, 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; Haggerty v. Haggerty, 78 A.D.3d 998, 999, 911 N.Y.S.2d 639). “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 Haggerty v. Haggerty, 78 A.D.3d at 999, 911 N.Y.S.2d 639; Matter of Julie v. Wills, 73 A.D.3d at 777, 899 N.Y.S.2d 669). Here, the Family Court's award of sole custody to the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Peoples v. Bideau, 85 A.D.3d 798, 924 N.Y.S.2d 843; Matter of Cavallero v. Pena, 83 A.D.3d 1062, 1063, 921 N.Y.S.2d 531).
FLORIO, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and MILLER, JJ., concur.