Burgos v. Sterina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgos v. Sterina

262 A.D.2d 943, 691 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7094

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

DecidedJune 18, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 943 (Burgos v. Sterina) 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

Burgos v. Sterina, 262 A.D.2d 943, 691 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We agree with respondent that Family Court erred when it modified a prior order by temporarily changing the residence of the child without conducting an evidentiary hearing. That order has been superseded, however, by the order on appeal, which was made after an evidentiary hearing and modified the prior order by granting primary physical residence of the child to petitioner. The record supports the determination that the change in primary residence is in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Smith v Patrowski, 226 AD2d 1073, 1074). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Miller, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We agree with respondent that Family Court erred when it modified a prior order by temporarily changing the residence of the child without conducting an evidentiary hearing. That order has been superseded, however, by the order on appeal, which was made after an evidentiary hearing and modified the prior order by granting primary physical residence of the child to petitioner. The record supports the determination that the change in primary residence is in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Smith v Patrowski, 226 AD2d 1073, 1074). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Miller, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 943, 691 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgos-v-sterina-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack