Baker v. Durham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baker v. Durham

68 A.D.3d 1105, 890 N.Y.2d 349

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 1105 (Baker v. Durham) 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

Baker v. Durham, 68 A.D.3d 1105, 890 N.Y.2d 349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

“[W]here parents enter into an agreement concerning custody, it will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the child” (Matter of Lopez v Infante, 55 AD3d 837, 837-838 [2008]). The Family Court’s determination to deny, after a hearing, the father’s petition for a change of custody of the parties’ children is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Marriott v Hernandez, 55 AD3d 613, 613-614 [2008]; Matter of Moorehead v Moorehead, 197 AD2d 517, 519 [1993]). Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

“[W]here parents enter into an agreement concerning custody, it will not be set aside unless there is a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation and unless the modification of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the child” (Matter of Lopez v Infante, 55 AD3d 837, 837-838 [2008]). The Family Court’s determination to deny, after a hearing, the father’s petition for a change of custody of the parties’ children is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Marriott v Hernandez, 55 AD3d 613, 613-614 [2008]; Matter of Moorehead v Moorehead, 197 AD2d 517, 519 [1993]). Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 1105, 890 N.Y.2d 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-durham-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack