Curtiss v. Elman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curtiss v. Elman

147 A.D.2d 438, 537 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1482

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 438 (Curtiss v. Elman) 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

Curtiss v. Elman, 147 A.D.2d 438, 537 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

— In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered January 3, 1986, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Abrams, J.), dated February 26, 1986, as upon the motion by the defendant husband and cross motion by the plaintiff wife, inter alia, for sole custody of the parties’ infant children, maintained the joint custody relationship and changed the primary residence -of the parties’ infant children to the defendant father’s home.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Upon this record, we find that the trial court carefully considered the totality of the circumstances involved in determining the best interest of the children (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171) and properly maintained the joint custody arrangement agreed to by the parties, while determining that physical residence of the children should be with their father (see, Matter of Martin v Martin, 113 AD2d 943). Eiber, J. P., Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered January 3, 1986, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Abrams, J.), dated February 26, 1986, as upon the motion by the defendant husband and cross motion by the plaintiff wife, inter alia, for sole custody of the parties’ infant children, maintained the joint custody relationship and changed the primary residence -of the parties’ infant children to the defendant father’s home.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Upon this record, we find that the trial court carefully considered the totality of the circumstances involved in determining the best interest of the children (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171) and properly maintained the joint custody arrangement agreed to by the parties, while determining that physical residence of the children should be with their father (see, Matter of Martin v Martin, 113 AD2d 943). Eiber, J. P., Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 438, 537 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtiss-v-elman-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack