Amatuccio v. Amatuccio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amatuccio v. Amatuccio

44 A.D.2d 826, 355 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5095

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

DecidedMay 6, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 826 (Amatuccio v. Amatuccio) 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

Amatuccio v. Amatuccio, 44 A.D.2d 826, 355 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for divorce, the plaintiff husband appeals, as'limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 25, 1973, as, without a hearing, denied his motion for custody of the parties’ two minor children pendente Ute and granted such custody to defendant, with visitation rights to plaintiff. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and motion remanded to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination. The affirmations of plaintiff, alleging that defendant is an alcoholic, neglected her children and exposed them to immoral conditions, on the basis of a number of [827]*827specified incidents and much uneontradieted evidence, were sufficient to require a hearing on the proper custody of the five- and six-year-old children of the parties. Denial of the motion without a hearing and without any reason given therefor was an improvident exercise of discretion. Martuseello, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for divorce, the plaintiff husband appeals, as'limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 25, 1973, as, without a hearing, denied his motion for custody of the parties’ two minor children pendente Ute and granted such custody to defendant, with visitation rights to plaintiff. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and motion remanded to Special Term for a hearing and a new determination. The affirmations of plaintiff, alleging that defendant is an alcoholic, neglected her children and exposed them to immoral conditions, on the basis of a number of [827]*827specified incidents and much uneontradieted evidence, were sufficient to require a hearing on the proper custody of the five- and six-year-old children of the parties. Denial of the motion without a hearing and without any reason given therefor was an improvident exercise of discretion. Martuseello, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 826, 355 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amatuccio-v-amatuccio-nyappdiv-1974.