Bliss v. Ach

439 N.E.2d 349, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 453 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3554
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 23, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by99 cases

This text of 439 N.E.2d 349 (Bliss v. Ach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bliss v. Ach, 439 N.E.2d 349, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 453 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3554 (N.Y. 1982).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division which modified a judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, awarding primary custody of the parties’ child to petitioner, [998]*998should be affirmed, with costs. The appeal from the order of the Appellate Division which, inter alia, unanimously affirmed an order of Supreme Court, New York County, denying respondent’s motion for a new trial should be dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal as of right lies from this order.

In this child custody proceeding, the trial court found that, although both parents are fit to raise the child, the welfare of the child would best be served by placing primary custody in the petitioner mother. Very important in this connection was the court’s determination that if the father were to receive primary custody, he would endeavor to fully integrate the child into his separate family, significantly downplaying the role of the child’s natural mother, jeopardizing both the child’s sense of identity and his relationship with his natural mother. A similar undesirable design on the part of the mother was not perceived. In seeking to effectuate the “first and paramount concern” of the best interests of the child (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768), the trial court properly considered the effect that an award of custody to one parent might have on the child’s relationship with the other parent. The trial court’s factual findings on this issue, as affirmed by the Appellate Division, find support in the record, and therefore are not subject to further review by this court (Matter of Infant D., 34 NY2d 806; see, generally, Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp 453-455).

Although the trial court awarded primary custody to the mother, it also provided for joint custody in the two parents, based upon a. finding that the parties were capable of cooperating to jointly raise the child and to provide for his needs as a common enterprise. We agree with the Appellate Division, however, that the existence of sharp differences between the parties makes an award of joint custody inappropriate. Such shared responsibility for and control of the child’s upbringing is not properly ordered where, as here, the parents have evidenced an inability to cooperate on matters concerning the child (see Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 584).

[999]*999Those remaining issues raised by respondent which are within the court’s power to review are without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

On the appeal from the order of the Appellate Division which modified the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County: Order affirmed, with costs.

On the appeal from the order of the Appellate Division which, inter alia, unanimously affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, denying a motion for a new trial: Appeal dismissed, without costs.

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

Related

Matter of Jasmine M. v. Albert M.
2025 NY Slip Op 04695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v. Koukis
44 N.Y.3d 25 (New York Court of Appeals, 2025)
Matter of Robinson v. Mustakas
185 N.Y.S.3d 302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Pettei v. Pettei
207 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Smith v. Francis
170 N.Y.S.3d 195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Gregoire v. Yadram
2019 NY Slip Op 7894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Dimas v. Fanfan
2018 NY Slip Op 8127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
McGinnis v. McGinnis
2018 NY Slip Op 1554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Steingart v. Fong
2017 NY Slip Op 8832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Paruchuri v. Akil
2017 NY Slip Op 8675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Weisberger v. Weisberger
2017 NY Slip Op 6212 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Karlsson v. Karlsson
2016 NY Slip Op 8953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Parrish P. v. Camille G.
140 A.D.3d 586 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Liliana C. v. Jose M.C.
128 A.D.3d 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Hardy v. Figueroa
128 A.D.3d 824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Florio v. Niven
123 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Matter of Frederick, A. v. Lisa C.
121 A.D.3d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Matter of Cisse v. Graham
120 A.D.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Wright v. Kaura
106 A.D.3d 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
David C. v. Laniece J.
102 A.D.3d 542 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
439 N.E.2d 349, 56 N.Y.2d 995, 453 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bliss-v-ach-ny-1982.