Curtis v. Malacari-Curtis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curtis v. Malacari-Curtis

265 A.D.2d 896, 696 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10012

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 896 (Curtis v. Malacari-Curtis) 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

Curtis v. Malacari-Curtis, 265 A.D.2d 896, 696 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Family Court following a hearing that granted respondent’s amended petition seeking sole custody of the parties’ daughter. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the court’s determination is supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed. The court properly determined that, under the circumstances, respondent is better able to care for the child’s needs and that it would be in the child’s best interests to transfer custody from petitioner to respondent (see, DeWaal v DeWaal, 249 AD2d 1003; Matter of Muzzi v Muzzi, 189 AD2d 1022, 1023). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Flemma, J.H.O. — Custody.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Family Court following a hearing that granted respondent’s amended petition seeking sole custody of the parties’ daughter. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the court’s determination is supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed. The court properly determined that, under the circumstances, respondent is better able to care for the child’s needs and that it would be in the child’s best interests to transfer custody from petitioner to respondent (see, DeWaal v DeWaal, 249 AD2d 1003; Matter of Muzzi v Muzzi, 189 AD2d 1022, 1023). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Flemma, J.H.O. — Custody.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 896, 696 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-malacari-curtis-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack