Barran v. Nayyar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barran v. Nayyar

174 A.D.2d 1012

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 1012 (Barran v. Nayyar) 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

Barran v. Nayyar, 174 A.D.2d 1012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent, who is Hindu, argues that the court erred in ordering that when his son visits him, respondent "shall comply with the ordinance of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in that the child shall attend Mass on Sundays and other Holy Days of Obligation which may occur during visitation.” We disagree. The order did not impermissibly interfere with respondent’s own religious practices (cf., Kadin v Kadin, 131 AD2d 437; see, Matter of Bentley v Bentley, 86 AD2d 926). He does not argue that the order was contrary to the best interest of the child, which is the applicable standard (see, Domestic Relations Law § 70; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95; Kadin v Kadin, supra, at 439). (Appeal from Order of Cayuga County Family Court, Corning, J.—Visitation.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent, who is Hindu, argues that the court erred in ordering that when his son visits him, respondent "shall comply with the ordinance of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in that the child shall attend Mass on Sundays and other Holy Days of Obligation which may occur during visitation.” We disagree. The order did not impermissibly interfere with respondent’s own religious practices (cf., Kadin v Kadin, 131 AD2d 437; see, Matter of Bentley v Bentley, 86 AD2d 926). He does not argue that the order was contrary to the best interest of the child, which is the applicable standard (see, Domestic Relations Law § 70; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95; Kadin v Kadin, supra, at 439). (Appeal from Order of Cayuga County Family Court, Corning, J.—Visitation.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 1012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barran-v-nayyar-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack