Ervin v. Pangilinan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ervin v. Pangilinan

86 A.D.2d 633, 446 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15171

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 633 (Ervin v. Pangilinan) 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

Ervin v. Pangilinan, 86 A.D.2d 633, 446 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, the father appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fogarty, J.), dated June 22,1981, as, after a hearing, awarded the petitioner mother temporary custody of the parties’ seven-year-old daughter. (We deem the order of this court dated July 9,1981 to have granted the father leave to appeal.) Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the provision awarding petitioner temporary custody of the parties’ daughter is deleted, and temporary custody is awarded to the father. The matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. There was insufficient basis in the record to support the court’s conclusion that temporary custody of the parties’ daughter should be awarded to the mother. We note that both parents offered testimony equally lacking in credibility as to how the father initially obtained custody of their daughter, then just over a year old. Accordingly, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from, award temporary custody to the father, and remit the case to the Family Court for the purpose of" making suitable provisions for visitation between the child and her mother and for a six-month follow-up psychiatric evaluation by a court-appointed psychiatrist, at the conclusion of which a final determination as to custody may be made. Moflen, P. J., Lazer, O’Connor and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, the father appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fogarty, J.), dated June 22,1981, as, after a hearing, awarded the petitioner mother temporary custody of the parties’ seven-year-old daughter. (We deem the order of this court dated July 9,1981 to have granted the father leave to appeal.) Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the provision awarding petitioner temporary custody of the parties’ daughter is deleted, and temporary custody is awarded to the father. The matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. There was insufficient basis in the record to support the court’s conclusion that temporary custody of the parties’ daughter should be awarded to the mother. We note that both parents offered testimony equally lacking in credibility as to how the father initially obtained custody of their daughter, then just over a year old. Accordingly, we reverse the order insofar as appealed from, award temporary custody to the father, and remit the case to the Family Court for the purpose of" making suitable provisions for visitation between the child and her mother and for a six-month follow-up psychiatric evaluation by a court-appointed psychiatrist, at the conclusion of which a final determination as to custody may be made. Moflen, P. J., Lazer, O’Connor and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 633, 446 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ervin-v-pangilinan-nyappdiv-1982.