CHAPPELL, RUTH M. v. DIBBLE, BRUCE C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

CHAPPELL, RUTH M. v. DIBBLE, BRUCE C.

82 A.D.3d 1669, 919 N.Y.2d 445, 2011 NY Slip Op 02254, 919 N.Y.S.2d 445

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2011

DocketCAF 09-02015

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1669 (CHAPPELL, RUTH M. v. DIBBLE, BRUCE C.) 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

CHAPPELL, RUTH M. v. DIBBLE, BRUCE C., 82 A.D.3d 1669, 919 N.Y.2d 445, 2011 NY Slip Op 02254, 919 N.Y.S.2d 445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order modifying the prior judgment of divorce by awarding primary physical custody of the parties’ child to petitioner mother and visitation to the father. We conclude at the outset that Family *1670 Court had jurisdiction over this proceeding because the initial custody determination was made by a court of this State, i.e., Supreme Court, as part of the judgment of divorce (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1]). We further conclude that the exceptions set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 76-a (1) do not apply under the circumstances here. Contrary to the father’s contention, the court was not required to decline to exercise its jurisdiction based on any unjustifiable conduct of the mother (see § 76-g [1]).

With respect to the merits, we conclude that the court was in the best position to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses, and we accord great weight to the court’s determination regarding custody (see Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955 [1994]). The court weighed the appropriate factors in determining that modification of the judgment by awarding primary physical custody to the mother was in the best interests of the child, and that determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Jones v Houck, 280 AD2d 969 [2001]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Sconiers, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order modifying the prior judgment of divorce by awarding primary physical custody of the parties’ child to petitioner mother and visitation to the father. We conclude at the outset that Family *1670 Court had jurisdiction over this proceeding because the initial custody determination was made by a court of this State, i.e., Supreme Court, as part of the judgment of divorce (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1]). We further conclude that the exceptions set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 76-a (1) do not apply under the circumstances here. Contrary to the father’s contention, the court was not required to decline to exercise its jurisdiction based on any unjustifiable conduct of the mother (see § 76-g [1]).

With respect to the merits, we conclude that the court was in the best position to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses, and we accord great weight to the court’s determination regarding custody (see Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955 [1994]). The court weighed the appropriate factors in determining that modification of the judgment by awarding primary physical custody to the mother was in the best interests of the child, and that determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Jones v Houck, 280 AD2d 969 [2001]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Sconiers, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1669, 919 N.Y.2d 445, 2011 NY Slip Op 02254, 919 N.Y.S.2d 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chappell-ruth-m-v-dibble-bruce-c-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack