Augstein v. Augstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Augstein v. Augstein

42 A.D.2d 937, 348 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3421

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 937 (Augstein v. Augstein) 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

Augstein v. Augstein, 42 A.D.2d 937, 348 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 28, 1973, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, so as to refer to the Special Referee to hear and report, together with his recommendations, the question of whether plaintiff’s departure for California with the child of the parties was with the consent of the defendant and if so, the length of time defendant consented that the child remain outside of New York’s jurisdiction. The order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. By previous court order defendant had been granted the right to visit with his infant son every Sunday. Concededly, plaintiff removed the child to California. The real issue, therefore, appears to be whether defendant consented to the child’s prolonged absence from New York. Under the terms of the visitation order plaintiff’s movements were not restricted. Indeed she could travel with the child freely subject only to the father’s right to see him every Sunday. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lane and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 28, 1973, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, so as to refer to the Special Referee to hear and report, together with his recommendations, the question of whether plaintiff’s departure for California with the child of the parties was with the consent of the defendant and if so, the length of time defendant consented that the child remain outside of New York’s jurisdiction. The order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. By previous court order defendant had been granted the right to visit with his infant son every Sunday. Concededly, plaintiff removed the child to California. The real issue, therefore, appears to be whether defendant consented to the child’s prolonged absence from New York. Under the terms of the visitation order plaintiff’s movements were not restricted. Indeed she could travel with the child freely subject only to the father’s right to see him every Sunday. Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lane and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 937, 348 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/augstein-v-augstein-nyappdiv-1973.