Bowman v. Bowman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bowman v. Bowman

19 A.D.2d 857, 244 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3036

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 857 (Bowman v. Bowman) 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

Bowman v. Bowman, 19 A.D.2d 857, 244 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: The custodial provisions of the annulment decree were changed without any common-law proofs being taken. The custody of children should not be determined on the basis of recriminatory and controverted affidavits, but the court should make such a determination only after [858]*858a full and plenary hearing and inquiry. (15 N. Y. Jur., Domestic Relations, § 357, p. 561; Fernandez v. Fernandez, 282 App. Div. 1043; Matter of Uhlan v. Uhlan, 283 App. Div. 1013; People ex rel. Kenny v. Kenny, 277 App. Div. 578; Radeff v. Radeff, 272 App. Div. 582; Maxson v. Maxson, 271 App. Div. 1044.) (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term amending a judgment of March 16, 1962 permitting plaintiff, as mother, to take minor child to California to live and except that visitation is limited to mother’s domicile in California.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, MeClusky, Henry and Noonan, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: The custodial provisions of the annulment decree were changed without any common-law proofs being taken. The custody of children should not be determined on the basis of recriminatory and controverted affidavits, but the court should make such a determination only after [858]*858a full and plenary hearing and inquiry. (15 N. Y. Jur., Domestic Relations, § 357, p. 561; Fernandez v. Fernandez, 282 App. Div. 1043; Matter of Uhlan v. Uhlan, 283 App. Div. 1013; People ex rel. Kenny v. Kenny, 277 App. Div. 578; Radeff v. Radeff, 272 App. Div. 582; Maxson v. Maxson, 271 App. Div. 1044.) (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term amending a judgment of March 16, 1962 permitting plaintiff, as mother, to take minor child to California to live and except that visitation is limited to mother’s domicile in California.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, MeClusky, Henry and Noonan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 857, 244 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-bowman-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack