Alston v. Curto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alston v. Curto

309 A.D.2d 930, 766 N.Y.S.2d 122

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 930 (Alston v. Curto) 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

Alston v. Curto, 309 A.D.2d 930, 766 N.Y.S.2d 122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Wright, J.), dated December 16, 2002, as amended December 20, 2002, which granted the father visitation at his home in Massachusetts for summer vacation and holiday vacations in alternate years.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

At the hearing on the petitioner’s application for visitation, both parties were sworn. Their testimony was sufficient to support the determination of the Family Court and does not support the mother’s contention that her work schedule rendered it impossible to deliver the child to the father in Massachusetts for summer vacation and holiday vacations in alternate years (see Matter of Eckert v Sommer, 295 AD2d 607 [2002]). The mother’s contention that the cost of compliance with the order of the Family Court would constitute an undue financial burden is unpreserved for appellate review. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Wright, J.), dated December 16, 2002, as amended December 20, 2002, which granted the father visitation at his home in Massachusetts for summer vacation and holiday vacations in alternate years.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

At the hearing on the petitioner’s application for visitation, both parties were sworn. Their testimony was sufficient to support the determination of the Family Court and does not support the mother’s contention that her work schedule rendered it impossible to deliver the child to the father in Massachusetts for summer vacation and holiday vacations in alternate years (see Matter of Eckert v Sommer, 295 AD2d 607 [2002]). The mother’s contention that the cost of compliance with the order of the Family Court would constitute an undue financial burden is unpreserved for appellate review. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 930, 766 N.Y.S.2d 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alston-v-curto-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack