Christopher J.S. v. Colleen A.B.

43 A.D.3d 1350, 842 N.Y.S.2d 627
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 28, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1350 (Christopher J.S. v. Colleen A.B.) 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
Christopher J.S. v. Colleen A.B., 43 A.D.3d 1350, 842 N.Y.S.2d 627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Niagara County (John F. Batt, J.), entered August 8, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner and visitation to respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order modifying an order of joint custody by granting sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner father. We affirm. Family Court’s determination “must be accorded great deference . . . and should not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Green v Mitchell, 266 AD2d 884 [1999]). The court was “in the best position to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Nunnery v Nunnery, 275 AD2d 986, 987 [2000]), and we see no reason to disturb the court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the child to award sole custody to the father (see generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Contrary to the mother’s contention, the record supports the court’s determination that joint custody is inap[1351]*1351propriate inasmuch as the parties have an acrimonious relationship and are unable to communicate with each other in a civil manner (see Matter of Dube v Dube, 259 AD2d 1041 [1999]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Robinson v. Santiago
2024 NY Slip Op 02416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Valentin v. Mendez
2019 NY Slip Op 6308 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Benedict v. Benedict
2019 NY Slip Op 1042 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Kleinbach v. Cullerton
2017 NY Slip Op 4641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
MOREDOCK, SAMANTHA J. v. CONTI, ANTHONY T.
130 A.D.3d 1472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
WILLIAMS, KEITH v. v. WILLIAMS, TAWNY B.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Williams v. Williams
100 A.D.3d 1347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Betro v. Carbone
50 A.D.3d 1583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Parish A. v. Jamie T.
49 A.D.3d 1322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A.D.3d 1350, 842 N.Y.S.2d 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-js-v-colleen-ab-nyappdiv-2007.