Autumn R. F. v. Randy R. P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Autumn R. F. v. Randy R. P.

255 A.D.2d 910, 680 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12112

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 910 (Autumn R. F. v. Randy R. P.) 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

Autumn R. F. v. Randy R. P., 255 A.D.2d 910, 680 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order transferring custody of the parties’ son to petitioner, subject to liberal visitation by respondent. Respondent contends that the determination to change custody does not have a sound basis in the record, that Family Court should not have credited the testimony of petitioner and her witnesses, and that a transfer of custody was not in the best interests of the child.

[911]*911The court properly transferred custody of the child to petitioner. The record establishes that petitioner is more nurturing and mature than respondent and is better able to provide for the child’s safety, stability, and educational, moral and emotional well-being (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-174; Matter of Przelski v Mower, 242 AD2d 923; Matter of Stornelli v Stowers, 227 AD2d 943, 944, lv denied 89 NY2d 801; cf., Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order transferring custody of the parties’ son to petitioner, subject to liberal visitation by respondent. Respondent contends that the determination to change custody does not have a sound basis in the record, that Family Court should not have credited the testimony of petitioner and her witnesses, and that a transfer of custody was not in the best interests of the child.

[911]*911The court properly transferred custody of the child to petitioner. The record establishes that petitioner is more nurturing and mature than respondent and is better able to provide for the child’s safety, stability, and educational, moral and emotional well-being (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-174; Matter of Przelski v Mower, 242 AD2d 923; Matter of Stornelli v Stowers, 227 AD2d 943, 944, lv denied 89 NY2d 801; cf., Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 910, 680 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/autumn-r-f-v-randy-r-p-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack