Law Office of Veronica Reed, Schenectady (Veronica Reed of counsel), for petitioner/respondent-appellant.

Kaman Berlove LLP, Rochester (Gary Muldoon of counsel), for respondent/petitioner-respondent.

Andrew G. Morabito, East Rochester, Attorney for the Children.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Richard M. Healy, J.), entered June 24, 2021, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, granted respondent/petitioner sole legal custody of the subject children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner/respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, effectively granted the cross petition of respondent/petitioner father insofar as the cross petition sought sole custody of the parties' two minor children. We affirm. The mother's contention that Family Court should have ordered a forensic evaluation for consideration in the analysis of the best interests of the children is unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Garrick v Simon, 197 AD3d 1316, 1316-1317 [2d Dept 2021]; see also Matter of Canfield v McCree, 90 AD3d 1653, 1654 [4th Dept 2011]).

We reject the mother's further contention that the court erred in granting the father sole custody of the subject children. "[A] court's determination regarding custody . . . issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight" (Matter of Saunders v Stull, 133 AD3d 1383, 1383 [4th Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and such a determination "will not be disturbed as long as it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Sheridan v Sheridan, 129 AD3d 1567, 1568 [4th Dept 2015]). Here, the court's custody determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Benson v Smith, 178 AD3d 1430, 1431 [4th Dept 2019]). Contrary to the mother's contention, joint custody was not appropriate given the parties' acrimonious relationship (see id.). Present—Smith, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Winslow and Bannister, JJ.