Anderson v. Barlow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anderson v. Barlow

256 A.D.2d 1234, 682 N.Y.S.2d 788

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1234 (Anderson v. Barlow) 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

Anderson v. Barlow, 256 A.D.2d 1234, 682 N.Y.S.2d 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner contends that Family Court erred in dismissing her custody [1235]*1235petition. We disagree. The court was “in the best position to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955, 956), and we see no reason to disturb the court’s determination. Similarly, the court properly determined that respondent’s relocation was in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose sanctions against respondent for violating a 1993 custody determination. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Townsend, J. — Custody.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner contends that Family Court erred in dismissing her custody [1235]*1235petition. We disagree. The court was “in the best position to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955, 956), and we see no reason to disturb the court’s determination. Similarly, the court properly determined that respondent’s relocation was in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741). Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose sanctions against respondent for violating a 1993 custody determination. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Townsend, J. — Custody.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Hayes, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1234, 682 N.Y.S.2d 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-barlow-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack