Constantin v. Wicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Constantin v. Wicks

108 A.D.2d 715, 485 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43053

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 A.D.2d 715 (Constantin v. Wicks) 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

Constantin v. Wicks, 108 A.D.2d 715, 485 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal, as limited by the brief of the appellant father, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Becker, J.), dated September 12, 1983, as (1) denied his motion for a change of custody of the child of the parties and determined that custody was to remain with petitioner mother, (2), sua sponte, modified a judgment of the same court (McCarthy, J.), dated March 1,1982, by reducing his visitation rights with said child, and (3) directed him to pay a certain sum as counsel fees for the petitioner.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find that the determination of the court concerning custody, visitation and counsel fees was a proper exercise of its discretion (see, Matter of Darlene T., 28 NY2d 391; Matter of Richards v Richards, 78 AD2d 943; Smith v Smith, 61 AD2d 1133). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal, as limited by the brief of the appellant father, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Becker, J.), dated September 12, 1983, as (1) denied his motion for a change of custody of the child of the parties and determined that custody was to remain with petitioner mother, (2), sua sponte, modified a judgment of the same court (McCarthy, J.), dated March 1,1982, by reducing his visitation rights with said child, and (3) directed him to pay a certain sum as counsel fees for the petitioner.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We find that the determination of the court concerning custody, visitation and counsel fees was a proper exercise of its discretion (see, Matter of Darlene T., 28 NY2d 391; Matter of Richards v Richards, 78 AD2d 943; Smith v Smith, 61 AD2d 1133). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 715, 485 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/constantin-v-wicks-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack