Nancy T. Sherman, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y., for appellant. Sari M. Friedman, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Andrea B. Friedman of counsel), for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated November 9, 2011, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 19, 2011, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded sole custody of the subject child to the plaintiff.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
There is “no prima facie right to the custody of the child in either parent” (Domestic Relations Law § 70[a]; § 240[1][a]; see Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 93, 447 N.Y.S.2d 893, 432 N.E.2d 765;Matter of Cardozo v. Defreitas, 87 A.D.3d 1138, 1138, 930 N.Y.S.2d 462;Mohen v. Mohen, 53 A.D.3d 471, 472, 862 N.Y.S.2d 75;Matter of Riccio v. Riccio, 21 A.D.3d 1107, 1107, 803 N.Y.S.2d 603). Rather, the essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the child ( see Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d at 94, 447 N.Y.S.2d 893, 432 N.E.2d 765;Matter of Cardozo v. Defreitas, 87 A.D.3d at 1138, 930 N.Y.S.2d 462). Moreover, the trial court's determination as to custody “should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” ( Cervera v. Bressler, 90 A.D.3d 803, 805, 934 N.Y.S.2d 500). Here, the record supports the trial court's award of custody to the plaintiff father. Under the totality of the circumstances, he is the more fit parent ( see Setty v. Koeneke, 148 A.D.2d 520, 521, 538 N.Y.S.2d 857).
The defendant's contention concerning child support is not properly before this Court inasmuch as the order appealed from did not decide the issue of support ( see McKiernan v. McKiernan, 277 A.D.2d 433, 434, 715 N.Y.S.2d 902).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.