Dobson v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dobson v. Marshall

285 A.D.2d 550, 727 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7433

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

DecidedJuly 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 550 (Dobson v. Marshall) 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

Dobson v. Marshall, 285 A.D.2d 550, 727 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kangs County (Segal, J.), [551]*551dated October 23, 1997, which, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the father and granted her visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court considered the totality of the circumstances in determining that the best interests of the parties’ child would be served by transferring custody to the father (see, Matter of Maurasse v Price, 277 AD2d 240; Matter of Castellano v England, 275 AD2d 412). The Family Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and it will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946; Matter of Ebert v Ebert, 38 NY2d 700; Matter of McCoy v McCoy, 277 AD2d 384; Matter of Lynch v Acey, 281 AD2d 483). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kangs County (Segal, J.), [551]*551dated October 23, 1997, which, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the father and granted her visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court considered the totality of the circumstances in determining that the best interests of the parties’ child would be served by transferring custody to the father (see, Matter of Maurasse v Price, 277 AD2d 240; Matter of Castellano v England, 275 AD2d 412). The Family Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and it will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946; Matter of Ebert v Ebert, 38 NY2d 700; Matter of McCoy v McCoy, 277 AD2d 384; Matter of Lynch v Acey, 281 AD2d 483). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 550, 727 N.Y.S.2d 909, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dobson-v-marshall-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack