Anstett v. Wolcott

94 A.D.2d 692, 461 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18116
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 2, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 94 A.D.2d 692 (Anstett v. Wolcott) 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
Anstett v. Wolcott, 94 A.D.2d 692, 461 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— In a custody proceeding, the plaintiff father appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), dated June 11, 1982, which vacated a temporary stay prohibiting the defendant mother from removing the parties’ children from Dutchess County, and (2) an order of the same court dated June 25,1982, which denied plaintiff’s application (a) for an injunction, prohibiting the defendant from removing the parties’ children from Dutchess County, (b) for custody of the parties’ children and (c) to reduce or suspend his obligation of support. Appeal from the order dated June 11,1982 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Said order was superseded by the order dated June 25, 1982. Order dated June 25, 1982 reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for the purpose of (1) holding a hearing at which testimony should be taken with respect to the circumstances surrounding defendant’s geographic move and plaintiff’s visitation rights, and (2) making a determination on the basis of proof adduced at such hearing. The primary concern in a custody proceeding is the best interests of the children (Domestic Relations Law, §§ 240,70; Matter of Ebert v Ebert, 38 NY2d 700; Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768). Inasmuch as neither parent has a prima facie right to custody (Domestic Relations Law, §§ 240, 70), the issue of custody can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing (see Matter of Braitsch v Braitsch, 52 AD2d 1073). Thompson, J. P., O’Connor, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

C.M. v. C.H.
6 Misc. 3d 361 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
Farrelly-Brew v. Moore
221 A.D.2d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Tacconi v. Tacconi
197 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Venzer v. Venzer
144 A.D.2d 552 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Smith v. Smith
143 A.D.2d 86 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People ex rel. Cleopa v. Petras
138 A.D.2d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Bayne v. Roberts
112 A.D.2d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
State ex rel. Hathaway v. Baker
103 A.D.2d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A.D.2d 692, 461 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anstett-v-wolcott-nyappdiv-1983.