Broomes v. Broomes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Broomes v. Broomes

277 A.D.2d 376, 717 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12168

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 376 (Broomes v. Broomes) 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

Broomes v. Broomes, 277 A.D.2d 376, 717 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ebrahimoff, J.H.O.), dated May 18, 1998, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied his petition for custody of the parties’ child and directed that his visitation with the child be supervised.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court weighed the appropriate factors and, thereupon, refused to transfer custody of the child to the father. The record clearly supports the Family Court’s determination that a transfer of custody was not in the best interests of the child (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Aull v Aull, 251 AD2d 325).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ebrahimoff, J.H.O.), dated May 18, 1998, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied his petition for custody of the parties’ child and directed that his visitation with the child be supervised.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court weighed the appropriate factors and, thereupon, refused to transfer custody of the child to the father. The record clearly supports the Family Court’s determination that a transfer of custody was not in the best interests of the child (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Aull v Aull, 251 AD2d 325).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 376, 717 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broomes-v-broomes-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack