Opinion
February 1, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.).
Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this court ( 22 NYCRR 670.20 [d], [f]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
While our authority in matters of custody is as broad as that of the trial court (see, Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946), the determination as to whether a custody award should be modified depends to a very great extent upon the assessments of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the assessments of the character and temperament of the parents. Accordingly, we treat the findings of the trial court with great respect (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Matter of Irene O., 38 N.Y.2d 776; Ira K. v Frances K., 115 A.D.2d 699). Based thereon and upon a review of the record in light of the factors outlined in Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer ( 55 N.Y.2d 89), we are satisfied that the trial court correctly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by permitting physical custody to remain with the mother. However, the mother should be aware that interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent by the custodial parent has been said to be an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent (Daghir v Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, affd 56 N.Y.2d 938).
Finally, while we agree that the trial court should have permitted testimony by a third party as to an expression of hostility toward the father by one of the mother's witnesses (see, Potter v Browne, 197 N.Y. 288; Brink v Stratton, 176 N.Y. 150; Schultz v Third Ave. R.R. Co., 89 N.Y. 242), under the circumstances of this case, reversal is not warranted. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.