Devlin v. Devlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Devlin v. Devlin

193 A.D.2d 1130, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5789

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

DecidedMay 28, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1130 (Devlin v. Devlin) 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

Devlin v. Devlin, 193 A.D.2d 1130, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

Judgment affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court, after a lengthy trial, determined that it would be in the best interests of the parties’ son to award custody to plaintiff. Where, as here, there has been a trial, the determination of the trial court, which was in a position to evaluate the testimony, character and sincerity of the witnesses, must be accorded great weight (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946; Matter of Forjone v Platner, 191 AD2d 1033; Gugino-Toufexis v Toufexis, 132 AD2d 995). The record shows that the trial court carefully weighed and considered the factors relevant to a determination of the child’s best interests (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89) and its determination is amply supported by the record. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the [1131]*1131trial court properly awarded custody to plaintiff. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

All concur except Balio, J., who dissents in part and votes to modify in accordance with the following Memorandum.

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

Judgment affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court, after a lengthy trial, determined that it would be in the best interests of the parties’ son to award custody to plaintiff. Where, as here, there has been a trial, the determination of the trial court, which was in a position to evaluate the testimony, character and sincerity of the witnesses, must be accorded great weight (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946; Matter of Forjone v Platner, 191 AD2d 1033; Gugino-Toufexis v Toufexis, 132 AD2d 995). The record shows that the trial court carefully weighed and considered the factors relevant to a determination of the child’s best interests (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89) and its determination is amply supported by the record. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the [1131]*1131trial court properly awarded custody to plaintiff. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

All concur except Balio, J., who dissents in part and votes to modify in accordance with the following Memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1130, 598 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devlin-v-devlin-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack