Abu Romi v. Hamdan

70 A.D.2d 934, 417 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12539
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 934 (Abu Romi v. Hamdan) 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
Abu Romi v. Hamdan, 70 A.D.2d 934, 417 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

— In a habeas corpus proceeding to determine custody of a child, petitioner, the child’s father, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 7, 1979, which dismissed the proceeding and let custody remain with respondent, the child’s maternal grandfather. Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for a hearing, which shall be conducted before a different Judge, and a new determination. In this custody struggle between the father and maternal grandparents, the record indicates that the court gave controlling weight to the preference of the then 10-year-old child after conducting an in camera off-the-record interview with the child. The wishes of the child alone provided an inadequate basis for the court’s award of custody (see Bullotta v Bullotta, 43 AD2d 847). In a custody proceeding, the court must make "an enlightened, objective and independent evaluation of the circumstances” (Matter of Ehrlich v Ressner, 55 AD2d 953, 954). In addition, the failure to conduct the interview with the child on the record, especially where paramount importance was given to the child’s wishes, makes intelligent review by this court impossible (see Matter of Ehrlich v Ressner, supra, p 954). Finally, in light of the serious allegations of the parties against each other, it was error not to conduct a full and comprehensive hearing to resolve the many factual issues raised (see Corso v Corso, 48 AD2d 652). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone, O’Connor and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sandra S. v. Abdul S.
30 Misc. 3d 797 (New York Family Court, 2010)
Ynclan v. Woodward
2010 OK 29 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2010)
ND McN. v. RJH, SR.
979 A.2d 1195 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2009)
Scott v. Scott
193 A.D.2d 1103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer
159 A.D.2d 113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Mosesku v. Mosesku
108 A.D.2d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Sooy v. Sooy
101 A.D.2d 287 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Ex Parte Berryhill
410 So. 2d 416 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1982)
Glantz v. Glantz
85 A.D.2d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Merritt v. Way
85 A.D.2d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A.D.2d 934, 417 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abu-romi-v-hamdan-nyappdiv-1979.