Albert T. v. Wanda H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Albert T. v. Wanda H.

43 A.D.3d 1320, 842 N.Y.S.2d 924

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1320 (Albert T. v. Wanda H.) 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

Albert T. v. Wanda H., 43 A.D.3d 1320, 842 N.Y.S.2d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County (Henry A. LaRaia, J.), entered November 23, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order awarded petitioner sole custody of the parties’ child and visitation to respondent.

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

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the petition [1321]*1321seeking to modify a prior order by awarding petitioner father sole custody of the parties’ child. Contrary to respondent mother’s contention, the court properly exercised jurisdiction over the proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a (1) (a) (see generally Bjornson v Bjornson, 20 AD3d 497, 499 [2005]). Also contrary to the mother’s contention, the record supports the court’s determination that awarding sole custody of the child to the father is in the child’s best interests, particularly in view of the evidence that the mother maintained a relationship with a level three sex offender and allowed him to move into her home and to have unsupervised contact with the child (see Matter of Richard C.T. v Helen R.G., 37 AD3d 1118 [2007]; Matter of Roe v Roe, 33 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2006]; Matter of Brady v Schermerhorn, 25 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2006]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Lunn, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County (Henry A. LaRaia, J.), entered November 23, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order awarded petitioner sole custody of the parties’ child and visitation to respondent.

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

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the petition [1321]*1321seeking to modify a prior order by awarding petitioner father sole custody of the parties’ child. Contrary to respondent mother’s contention, the court properly exercised jurisdiction over the proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a (1) (a) (see generally Bjornson v Bjornson, 20 AD3d 497, 499 [2005]). Also contrary to the mother’s contention, the record supports the court’s determination that awarding sole custody of the child to the father is in the child’s best interests, particularly in view of the evidence that the mother maintained a relationship with a level three sex offender and allowed him to move into her home and to have unsupervised contact with the child (see Matter of Richard C.T. v Helen R.G., 37 AD3d 1118 [2007]; Matter of Roe v Roe, 33 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2006]; Matter of Brady v Schermerhorn, 25 AD3d 1037, 1038 [2006]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Lunn, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1320, 842 N.Y.S.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-t-v-wanda-h-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack