Abrams v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrams v. Abrams

159 A.D.2d 450

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 29, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 450 (Abrams v. Abrams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abrams v. Abrams, 159 A.D.2d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered June 2, 1989, which awarded the parties joint custody of their infant son, pendente lite, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint custody to the parties herein. Although there is some hostility between plaintiff father and defendant mother, it does not appear that the joint custody arrangement is unworkable. The testimony established that both parents were concerned and actively involved in the child’s nurturing and care. While plaintiff does have a more flexible work schedule, defendant should not be penalized for having a more demanding career, particularly when she had made considerable effort to devote time to the child. The decision, awarding temporary custody to both parents pendente lite, was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered June 2, 1989, which awarded the parties joint custody of their infant son, pendente lite, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding joint custody to the parties herein. Although there is some hostility between plaintiff father and defendant mother, it does not appear that the joint custody arrangement is unworkable. The testimony established that both parents were concerned and actively involved in the child’s nurturing and care. While plaintiff does have a more flexible work schedule, defendant should not be penalized for having a more demanding career, particularly when she had made considerable effort to devote time to the child. The decision, awarding temporary custody to both parents pendente lite, was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-v-abrams-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack