Benedict v. Zimmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Benedict v. Zimmer

296 A.D.2d 459, 744 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7309

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

DecidedJuly 8, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 459 (Benedict v. Zimmer) 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

Benedict v. Zimmer, 296 A.D.2d 459, 744 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Boggio, R.), dated June 27, 2000, as awarded custody of the child to the father, and directed that her visitation would be supervised and take place in Pennsylvania.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Richmond County, for a hearing on the issue of custody and a de novo determination of the father’s petition for a change of custody; and it is further,

Ordered that the provisions of the order dated June 27, 2000 shall remain in effect pending the new determination.

It was error for the Family Court to issue an order concerning custody and visitation based on controverted allegations without conducting a full evidentiary hearing (see Biagi v Biagi, 124 AD2d 770). Moreover, a custody determination should be made upon consideration of all of the circumstances to reach the disposition that promotes the best interests of the child (see Metzger v Metzger, 240 AD2d 642). Accordingly, we remit the matter for a hearing where the parties and the Law Guardian can present their evidence. O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Boggio, R.), dated June 27, 2000, as awarded custody of the child to the father, and directed that her visitation would be supervised and take place in Pennsylvania.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Richmond County, for a hearing on the issue of custody and a de novo determination of the father’s petition for a change of custody; and it is further,

Ordered that the provisions of the order dated June 27, 2000 shall remain in effect pending the new determination.

It was error for the Family Court to issue an order concerning custody and visitation based on controverted allegations without conducting a full evidentiary hearing (see Biagi v Biagi, 124 AD2d 770). Moreover, a custody determination should be made upon consideration of all of the circumstances to reach the disposition that promotes the best interests of the child (see Metzger v Metzger, 240 AD2d 642). Accordingly, we remit the matter for a hearing where the parties and the Law Guardian can present their evidence. O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 459, 744 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benedict-v-zimmer-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack