Daghir v. Daghir

439 N.E.2d 324, 56 N.Y.2d 938, 453 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3522
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 17, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by137 cases

This text of 439 N.E.2d 324 (Daghir v. Daghir) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Daghir v. Daghir, 439 N.E.2d 324, 56 N.Y.2d 938, 453 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3522 (N.Y. 1982).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division properly reversed the order of Family Court for error of law. The Family Court had based its decision only on a balancing of the interests of the husband and the wife without making any determination as to the best interests of the children — the legally dispositive issue. Because the Family Court did not consider this issue it can be said, as did the Appellate Division, that the Family Court erred as a matter of law. The appellate court then proceeded to exercise its fact-finding authority and responsibility and determined that the best interests of the children would be served by prohibiting their removal from New York State and awarding temporary custody to the father during the mother’s absence from the State for the purpose of giving effect to the father’s right of visitation. This is not, therefore, a classic custody case in which we are often called on to choose between differing factual assessments as to the best interests of the children (cf. Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167). In this instance we would disturb the disposition at the Appellate Division only if we were to conclude that it was erroneous as a matter of law. No such conclusion can be drawn on the record before us (cf. Priebe v Priebe, 55 NY2d 997; Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170).

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

Related

Matter of Carleo v. Pluchinotta
138 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Blazek v. Zavelo
127 A.D.3d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Purse v. Crocker
95 A.D.3d 1216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Reyes v. Polanco
83 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Jules v. Corriette
76 A.D.2d 1016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mathie v. Mathie
65 A.D.3d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Tabares v. Tabares
64 A.D.3d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Cervera v. Bressler
50 A.D.3d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Doherty v. Doherty
49 A.D.3d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Gartmond v. Conway
40 A.D.3d 1094 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Matter of Joseph L. Sr. v. Cathi C.
2005 NY Slip Op 51265(U) (Orange Family Court, 2005)
John A. v. Bridget M.
16 A.D.3d 324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Matter of John A. v. Bridget M.
2004 NY Slip Op 50992(U) (NYC Family Court, 2004)
In Re Marriage of Condon
62 Cal. App. 4th 533 (California Court of Appeal, 1998)
Condon v. Cooper
62 Cal. App. 4th 533 (California Court of Appeal, 1998)
MATTER OF TROPEA v. Tropea
665 N.E.2d 145 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Stechel v. Stechel
144 A.D.2d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Valenza v. Valenza
143 A.D.2d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Skolnick v. Skolnick
142 A.D.2d 570 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Olmo v. Olmo
140 A.D.2d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
439 N.E.2d 324, 56 N.Y.2d 938, 453 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daghir-v-daghir-ny-1982.