Bobinski v. Bobinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bobinski v. Bobinski

9 A.D.3d 441, 780 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10020

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

DecidedJuly 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 441 (Bobinski v. Bobinski) 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

Bobinski v. Bobinski, 9 A.D.3d 441, 780 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated January 7, 1999, the mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated January 23, 2004-, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted that branch of the father’s motion which was to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and awarded sole custody of the parties’ children to the father, and denied that branch of her motion which was to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and to award her sole custody of the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"[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 children” (Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette, 262 AD2d 804, 805 [1999]; see Smoczkiewicz v Smoczkiewicz, 2 AD3d 705, 706 [2003]).

The Supreme Court’s determination must be accorded great deference on appeal, since it had the opportunity to assess the witnesses’ demeanors and credibility (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]; Darema-Rogers v Rogers, 199 AD2d 456, 457 [1993]). Its award of custody of the parties’ children to the father was in the children’s best interests (see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra at 171-173). The mother’s conduct, inter alia, in alienating the children from their father, interfering with their relationships, and disregarding the father’s rights as a joint custodial parent, were acts so inconsistent with the best interests of the children (see Stern v Stern, 304 AD2d 649 [2003]; Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114, 122 [1995]; Matter of J.F. v L.F., [442]*442181 Misc 2d 722 [1999], affd 270 AD2d 489 [2000]), that it cannot be said that the Supreme Court’s determination lacked a sound and substantial basis (see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Luciano, Townes and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated January 7, 1999, the mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated January 23, 2004-, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted that branch of the father’s motion which was to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and awarded sole custody of the parties’ children to the father, and denied that branch of her motion which was to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and to award her sole custody of the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"[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 children” (Matter of Gaudette v Gaudette, 262 AD2d 804, 805 [1999]; see Smoczkiewicz v Smoczkiewicz, 2 AD3d 705, 706 [2003]).

The Supreme Court’s determination must be accorded great deference on appeal, since it had the opportunity to assess the witnesses’ demeanors and credibility (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]; Darema-Rogers v Rogers, 199 AD2d 456, 457 [1993]). Its award of custody of the parties’ children to the father was in the children’s best interests (see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra at 171-173). The mother’s conduct, inter alia, in alienating the children from their father, interfering with their relationships, and disregarding the father’s rights as a joint custodial parent, were acts so inconsistent with the best interests of the children (see Stern v Stern, 304 AD2d 649 [2003]; Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114, 122 [1995]; Matter of J.F. v L.F., [442]*442181 Misc 2d 722 [1999], affd 270 AD2d 489 [2000]), that it cannot be said that the Supreme Court’s determination lacked a sound and substantial basis (see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Luciano, Townes and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 441, 780 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bobinski-v-bobinski-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack