DuPrat v. DuPrat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DuPrat v. DuPrat

282 A.D.2d 380, 723 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4090

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

DecidedApril 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 380 (DuPrat v. DuPrat) 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

DuPrat v. DuPrat, 282 A.D.2d 380, 723 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Maijory Fields, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1997, which, after a hearing, insofar as appealed from, awarded petitioner custody of the parties’ younger child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of custody in petitioner’s favor has a sound and substantial basis (see, Victor L. v Darlene L., 251 AD2d 178, lv denied 92 NY2d 816; see also, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174) in evidence showing, among other things, that [381]*381respondent deliberately frustrated petitioner’s visitation rights, and also neglected the older child’s educational needs by not following his teacher’s advice that he be tested for learning disabilities and the need for glasses and by not ensuring his regular and punctual attendance at school. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Maijory Fields, J.), entered on or about June 24, 1997, which, after a hearing, insofar as appealed from, awarded petitioner custody of the parties’ younger child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of custody in petitioner’s favor has a sound and substantial basis (see, Victor L. v Darlene L., 251 AD2d 178, lv denied 92 NY2d 816; see also, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174) in evidence showing, among other things, that [381]*381respondent deliberately frustrated petitioner’s visitation rights, and also neglected the older child’s educational needs by not following his teacher’s advice that he be tested for learning disabilities and the need for glasses and by not ensuring his regular and punctual attendance at school. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 380, 723 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duprat-v-duprat-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack