Adams v. Borrasca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Borrasca

288 A.D.2d 840, 732 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10539

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 840 (Adams v. Borrasca) 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

Adams v. Borrasca, 288 A.D.2d 840, 732 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied, petition reinstated and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition seeking a change in custody at the close of petitioner’s proof. It cannot be said here that the proof presented was such that a finding in favor of petitioner [841]*841could not be made by any rational process (see, Nicholas v Reason, 84 AD2d 915). Furthermore, such a motion should not be granted where, as here, “resolution of disputed facts depends upon credibility determinations” (Fenton v Ives, 229 AD2d 704, 705). Thus, we reverse the order, deny respondent’s motion, reinstate the petition and remit the matter to Erie County Family Court for a new hearing. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Szczur, J. — Custody.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurl-butt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied, petition reinstated and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition seeking a change in custody at the close of petitioner’s proof. It cannot be said here that the proof presented was such that a finding in favor of petitioner [841]*841could not be made by any rational process (see, Nicholas v Reason, 84 AD2d 915). Furthermore, such a motion should not be granted where, as here, “resolution of disputed facts depends upon credibility determinations” (Fenton v Ives, 229 AD2d 704, 705). Thus, we reverse the order, deny respondent’s motion, reinstate the petition and remit the matter to Erie County Family Court for a new hearing. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Szczur, J. — Custody.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurl-butt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 840, 732 N.Y.S.2d 924, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-borrasca-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack