IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL J. BUCKLEY,PETITIONER-APPELLANT,V MEMORANDUM AND ORDERJACQUELYN KLEINAHANS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.AMDURSKY, PELKY, FENNELL & WALLEN, P.C., OSWEGO (COURTNEY S. RADICK OFCOUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.DAVIS LAW OFFICE PLLC, OSWEGO (STEPHANIE N. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FORRESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.SAMUEL J. SUGAR, FULTON, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County (ThomasBenedetto, R.), entered July 14, 2017 in a proceeding pursuant toFamily Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awardedrespondent sole legal and physical custody of the subject children.It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from isunanimously affirmed without costs.Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order that, interalia, awarded respondent mother sole legal and physical custody of theparties’ two children. We reject the father’s contention that FamilyCourt’s determination is not supported by a sound and substantialbasis in the record. In making an initial custody determination, thecourt is “required to consider the best interests of the child byreviewing such factors as ‘maintaining stability for the child, . . .the home environment with each parent, each parent’s past performance,relative fitness, ability to guide and provide for the child’s overallwell-being, and the willingness of each parent to foster arelationship with the other parent’ ” (Kaczor v Kaczor, 12 AD3d 956,958 [3d Dept 2004];see Matter of Chilbert v Soler, 77 AD3d 1405, 1406[4th Dept 2010],lv denied16 NY3d 701 [2011]). We agree with thecourt that those factors weigh in the mother’s favor, especially withrespect to the last factor, and thus the court’s determination that itis in the children’s best interests to award sole custody to themother has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter ofShaw v Antes, 274 AD2d 679, 680-681 [3d Dept 2000]).The father failed to preserve for our review his contention thatthe court was biased against him because he failed to make a motionasking the court to recuse itself (see Matter of Shonyo v Shonyo, 151AD3d 1595, 1596 [4th Dept 2017],lv denied30 NY3d 901 [2017]). Thefather also failed to preserve for our review his contention that theAttorney for the Children (AFC) was biased against him because hefailed to make a motion seeking the AFC’s removal (see Matter ofElniski v Junker, 142 AD3d 1392, 1393 [4th Dept 2016]).We reject the father’s contention that he was denied effectiveassistance of counsel at the hearing on the ground that counsel failedto renew his request for an adjournment. ” ‘There is no denial ofeffective assistance of counsel . . . arising from a failure to make amotion or argument that has little or no chance of success’ ” (Matterof Lundyn S. [Al-Rahim S.], 144 AD3d 1511, 1512 [4th Dept 2016],lvdenied29 NY3d 901 [2017]). We further reject the father’s contentionwith respect to the remaining instances of alleged ineffectiveassistance of counsel inasmuch as he did not ” ‘demonstrate theabsence of strategic or other legitimate explanations’ for counsel’salleged shortcomings” (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998];seeMatter of Elijah D. [Allison D.], 74 AD3d 1846, 1847 [4th Dept2010]).Entered: June 8, 2018 Mark W. BennettClerk of the Court
