Carr v. Carr

187 A.D.2d 408, 589 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12569
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 2, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 408 (Carr v. Carr) 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
Carr v. Carr, 187 A.D.2d 408, 589 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered May 30, 1989, the husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered June 3, 1992, as granted the plaintiff wife’s motion to alter his visitation rights.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from with costs.

[409]*409The overarching factor with respect to custody and visitation issues is the best interests of the child (see, Hemphill v Hemphill, 169 AD2d 29, 32). Any custody or visitation determination relies heavily upon the court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the character and temperament of the parents (see, B. v B., 184 AD2d 609). Accordingly, the findings of the trial court are generally accorded great respect on appeal (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173).

Here, after a full trial, the Supreme Court, in the judgment of divorce, determined that the best interests of the children permitted the husband visitation on alternate weekends. This Court modified the judgment to hold that the husband should have visitation rights "on three weekends per month until the end of 1993, when the wife is expected to return to full-time employment” (Carr v Carr, 171 AD2d 776, 777). Since the wife has now returned to full-time employment, the Supreme Court’s determination to put the alternate weekend visitation schedule back into effect has a sound and substantial evidentiary basis which wholly conforms with the sum and substance of this Court’s prior order. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Everett v. Everett
203 A.D.2d 981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 A.D.2d 408, 589 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-carr-nyappdiv-1992.