Eckert v. Sommer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eckert v. Sommer

295 A.D.2d 607, 744 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6728

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 607 (Eckert v. Sommer) 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

Eckert v. Sommer, 295 A.D.2d 607, 744 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In related visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered December 22, 1998, as, after a hearing, modified her visitation schedule.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Family Court, which observed the witnesses, is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Ford v Peele, 250 AD2d 767). The testimony adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support the Family Court’s determination that a modification of the mother’s visitation was in the best interests of the child.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Smith and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In related visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered December 22, 1998, as, after a hearing, modified her visitation schedule.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Family Court, which observed the witnesses, is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Ford v Peele, 250 AD2d 767). The testimony adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support the Family Court’s determination that a modification of the mother’s visitation was in the best interests of the child.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Smith and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 607, 744 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckert-v-sommer-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack