Braiman v. Braiman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braiman v. Braiman

71 A.D.2d 995, 420 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13316

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 995 (Braiman v. Braiman) 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

Braiman v. Braiman, 71 A.D.2d 995, 420 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a custody proceeding, the mother appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated May 2, 1979, which, inter alia, denied her motion (1) for a change of venue and (2) for increased visitation pending the hearing de novo. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The new hearing in this matter shall be held before a Justice of the Supreme Court who has not presided over any previous aspect of this proceeding. We have reviewed appellant’s allegations of error and find them to be without merit. The "new hearing [should be] held with utmost expedition” as directed by the Court of Appeals (Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 584, 587). We believe, however, that the interests of justice will be best served if the new hearing is held before a Justice who has not presided over any previous aspect of this proceeding, and we so direct. We also note that the visitation allowed to the mother by Special Term’s order of July 6, 1976 should not be further frustrated. O’Connor, J. P., Lazer, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In a custody proceeding, the mother appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated May 2, 1979, which, inter alia, denied her motion (1) for a change of venue and (2) for increased visitation pending the hearing de novo. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The new hearing in this matter shall be held before a Justice of the Supreme Court who has not presided over any previous aspect of this proceeding. We have reviewed appellant’s allegations of error and find them to be without merit. The "new hearing [should be] held with utmost expedition” as directed by the Court of Appeals (Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 584, 587). We believe, however, that the interests of justice will be best served if the new hearing is held before a Justice who has not presided over any previous aspect of this proceeding, and we so direct. We also note that the visitation allowed to the mother by Special Term’s order of July 6, 1976 should not be further frustrated. O’Connor, J. P., Lazer, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 995, 420 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braiman-v-braiman-nyappdiv-1979.