Amari v. Molloy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amari v. Molloy

293 A.D.2d 431, 739 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3333

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

DecidedApril 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 431 (Amari v. Molloy) 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

Amari v. Molloy, 293 A.D.2d 431, 739 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated June 23, 1999, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated October 20, 2000, which, inter alia, awarded custody of the parties’ infant child to the defendant, and limited his visitation rights.

[432]*432Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A custody determination is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and is accorded great deference on appeal as the trial court had the opportunity to assess the witnesses’ demeanor and credibility” (Kelley-Milone v Milone, 256 AD2d 554; see also Maloney v Maloney, 208 AD2d 603; Matter of Garvin v Garvin, 176 AD2d 318). The trial court, upon consideration of all of the relevant circumstances, must determine what is in the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 240; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Matter of Johnson v Cole, 287 AD2d 632). The Supreme Court’s determination that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the defendant has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; cf. Matter of Chebuske v Burnhard-Vogt, 284 AD2d 456).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, neither party sought joint custody. In any event, joint custody is inappropriate in this case because “the parties have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to cooperate in making decisions on matters relating to the care and welfare” of their child (Forzano v Scuderi, 224 AD2d 385, 386; see also Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995; Tesler v Tesler, 228 AD2d 491).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. O’Brien, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated June 23, 1999, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated October 20, 2000, which, inter alia, awarded custody of the parties’ infant child to the defendant, and limited his visitation rights.

[432]*432Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A custody determination is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and is accorded great deference on appeal as the trial court had the opportunity to assess the witnesses’ demeanor and credibility” (Kelley-Milone v Milone, 256 AD2d 554; see also Maloney v Maloney, 208 AD2d 603; Matter of Garvin v Garvin, 176 AD2d 318). The trial court, upon consideration of all of the relevant circumstances, must determine what is in the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 240; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Matter of Johnson v Cole, 287 AD2d 632). The Supreme Court’s determination that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the defendant has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; cf. Matter of Chebuske v Burnhard-Vogt, 284 AD2d 456).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, neither party sought joint custody. In any event, joint custody is inappropriate in this case because “the parties have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to cooperate in making decisions on matters relating to the care and welfare” of their child (Forzano v Scuderi, 224 AD2d 385, 386; see also Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995; Tesler v Tesler, 228 AD2d 491).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. O’Brien, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 431, 739 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amari-v-molloy-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack