Bittner v. Bittner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bittner v. Bittner

132 A.D.2d 947, 518 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49401

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 A.D.2d 947 (Bittner v. Bittner) 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

Bittner v. Bittner, 132 A.D.2d 947, 518 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified on the law and facts and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with memorandum. All concur, Dillon, P. J., not participating. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment of divorce, plaintiff’s primary claim is that the trial court erred in granting defendant father the right to exercise his visitation with the parties’ five-[948]*948year-old daughter "in any geographical location he chooses.” Plaintiff has failed to establish that such visitation is not in the child’s best interest, or that overnight visitation in Boston, Massachusetts, where the father resides, has been disruptive or detrimental to the child. Although the trial court did not make specific findings in support of various portions of its judgment, a reversal and remand is not required because the reasons for the court’s rulings appear on the face of the record (see, Damiano v Damiano, 94 AD2d 132, 134). We modify the judgment only by adding adultery as a ground for divorce (see, Marmorale v Marmorale, 103 AD2d 736), and by making the award of child support retroactive to the date of the commencement of the action (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [7] [a]). Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed. We have considered the other claims raised by the plaintiff and find each one lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Honan, J. — divorce.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment modified on the law and facts and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with memorandum. All concur, Dillon, P. J., not participating. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment of divorce, plaintiff’s primary claim is that the trial court erred in granting defendant father the right to exercise his visitation with the parties’ five-[948]*948year-old daughter "in any geographical location he chooses.” Plaintiff has failed to establish that such visitation is not in the child’s best interest, or that overnight visitation in Boston, Massachusetts, where the father resides, has been disruptive or detrimental to the child. Although the trial court did not make specific findings in support of various portions of its judgment, a reversal and remand is not required because the reasons for the court’s rulings appear on the face of the record (see, Damiano v Damiano, 94 AD2d 132, 134). We modify the judgment only by adding adultery as a ground for divorce (see, Marmorale v Marmorale, 103 AD2d 736), and by making the award of child support retroactive to the date of the commencement of the action (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [7] [a]). Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed. We have considered the other claims raised by the plaintiff and find each one lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Honan, J. — divorce.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.2d 947, 518 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bittner-v-bittner-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack