MARK C. DILLON
Christopher J. Robles, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Tiffany Moseley, Hauppauge, N.Y., for respondent.
Eric Perlmutter, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Dennis Lebwohl, J.), both dated October 1, 2013. The first order, after a hearing, denied the mother's petition for custody of the subject child and granted the father's petition for custody of the subject child. The second order granted the mother visitation with the child on Wednesday afternoons from 2:25 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court did not err in allowing the mother to represent herself at the hearing. The record, as a whole, demonstrates that the mother made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent decision to waive her right to counsel and to proceed ( see People v. Providence, 2 N.Y.3d 579, 582–583, 780 N.Y.S.2d 552, 813 N.E.2d 632; People v. Arroyo, 98 N.Y.2d 101, 102–105, 745 N.Y.S.2d 796, 772 N.E.2d 1154; Matter of Francis v. Holder, 71 A.D.3d 1018, 1019, 896 N.Y.S.2d 888).
“The paramount concern in any custody or visitation determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances” ( Matter of Boggio v. Boggio, 96 A.D.3d 834, 835, 945 N.Y.S.2d 764; see Matter of Wilson v. McGlinchey, 2 N.Y.3d 375, 380–381, 779 N.Y.S.2d 159, 811 N.E.2d 526; Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). A hearing court's findings are accorded deference, and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Torres v. Ojeda, 108 A.D.3d 570, 570–571, 968 N.Y.S.2d 191; Cervera v. Bressler, 90 A.D.3d 803, 805, 934 N.Y.S.2d 500; Matter of Elliott v. Felder, 69 A.D.3d 623, 623, 892 N.Y.S.2d 491). Here, the Family Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and its determination to award sole custody of the subject child to the father is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d at 171–172, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Kramer v. Griffith, 119 A.D.3d 655, 656, 990 N.Y.S.2d 69; Matter of Mitchell v. Mitchell, 113 A.D.3d 775, 776, 978 N.Y.S.2d 876). Moreover, the court's determination that it would be in the subject child's best interests to have limited visitation with the mother has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Kramer v. Griffith, 119 A.D.3d at 656, 990 N.Y.S.2d 69; Matter of Lane v. Lane, 68 A.D.3d 995, 997, 892 N.Y.S.2d 130).
The mother's contention that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in making its determination without conducting an in camera interview of the subject child is without merit ( see Matter of Son v. Ramos, 117 A.D.3d 745, 746–747, 984 N.Y.S.2d 612; Matter of Asgedom v. Asgedom, 51 A.D.3d 787, 788, 858 N.Y.S.2d 688).