Darrow v. Darrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Darrow v. Darrow

215 A.D.2d 844, 626 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4999

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

DecidedMay 11, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 844 (Darrow v. Darrow) 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

Darrow v. Darrow, 215 A.D.2d 844, 626 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tioga County (Callanan, Sr., J.), entered November 16, 1992, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of custody.

In our view, Family Court did not err in dismissing petitioner’s July 22, 1992 application to modify the provisions of a prior order granting custody of the parties’ three children to respondent. Although petitioner alleged as a basis for his petition that respondent allowed inappropriate behavior to take place in the presence of the children, there is ample support in the record for Family Court’s finding that petitioner failed to establish these allegations. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb Family Court’s order.

[845]*845Mikoll, J. P, Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ, concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tioga County (Callanan, Sr., J.), entered November 16, 1992, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of custody.

In our view, Family Court did not err in dismissing petitioner’s July 22, 1992 application to modify the provisions of a prior order granting custody of the parties’ three children to respondent. Although petitioner alleged as a basis for his petition that respondent allowed inappropriate behavior to take place in the presence of the children, there is ample support in the record for Family Court’s finding that petitioner failed to establish these allegations. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb Family Court’s order.

[845]*845Mikoll, J. P, Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ, concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 844, 626 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darrow-v-darrow-nyappdiv-1995.