Chamberlain v. Chamberlain

66 A.D.3d 811, 886 N.Y.S.2d 619

This text of 66 A.D.3d 811 (Chamberlain v. Chamberlain) 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
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 66 A.D.3d 811, 886 N.Y.S.2d 619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered July 8, 2004, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), dated April 21, 2008, as, in effect, granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were to modify the [812]*812defendant’s visitation schedule with the parties’ children and to clarify a provision of the judgment of divorce relating to the identity of the person or persons authorized to pick up the parties’ children for their periods of visitation with the defendant.

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

The plaintiff’s procedural objections to the order appealed from do not warrant reversal.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]; Matter of Petkovsek v Snyder, 251 AD2d 1086 [1998]). Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Moreno
516 N.E.2d 200 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
Petkovsek v. Snyder
251 A.D.2d 1086 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 A.D.3d 811, 886 N.Y.S.2d 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlain-v-chamberlain-nyappdiv-2009.