Cosentino v. Cosentino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cosentino v. Cosentino

30 A.D.2d 554, 291 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3936

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

DecidedMay 20, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 554 (Cosentino v. Cosentino) 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

Cosentino v. Cosentino, 30 A.D.2d 554, 291 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 5, 1967, reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion remitted to said court (1) for a hearing on the issue as to whether defendant is entitled to visitation and (2) for a determination de novo. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to modify the divorce decree so as to provide her with visitation rights. Furthermore, that portion of the order which directed defendant not to communicate with the two children of the parties, absent a hearing, was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 5, 1967, reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion remitted to said court (1) for a hearing on the issue as to whether defendant is entitled to visitation and (2) for a determination de novo. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to modify the divorce decree so as to provide her with visitation rights. Furthermore, that portion of the order which directed defendant not to communicate with the two children of the parties, absent a hearing, was an improvident exercise of discretion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 554, 291 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosentino-v-cosentino-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack