Farber v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farber v. Martin

245 A.D.2d 1086, 666 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13865

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 1086 (Farber v. Martin) 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

Farber v. Martin, 245 A.D.2d 1086, 666 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In 1993, a consent order was entered granting petitioners visitation with their three grandchildren. Petitioners commenced this proceeding, alleging that respondents, the childrens’ parents, violated that order, and respondents cross-petitioned for a reduction in visitation. We reject petitioners’ contention that Family Court erred in granting the cross petition. The record supports the court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the children to modify the visitation order (see, Schoffman v Schoffman, 137 AD2d 423, 424; see also, Lo Presti v Lo Presti, 40 NY2d 522, 527). We also reject the contention of petitioners that the court erred in appointing a single Law Guardian for the three children (see, Matter of Smith v Smith, 241 AD2d 980). Furthermore, there is no merit to the argument of petitioners that the court was biased against them. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Morgan, J.—Visitation.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In 1993, a consent order was entered granting petitioners visitation with their three grandchildren. Petitioners commenced this proceeding, alleging that respondents, the childrens’ parents, violated that order, and respondents cross-petitioned for a reduction in visitation. We reject petitioners’ contention that Family Court erred in granting the cross petition. The record supports the court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the children to modify the visitation order (see, Schoffman v Schoffman, 137 AD2d 423, 424; see also, Lo Presti v Lo Presti, 40 NY2d 522, 527). We also reject the contention of petitioners that the court erred in appointing a single Law Guardian for the three children (see, Matter of Smith v Smith, 241 AD2d 980). Furthermore, there is no merit to the argument of petitioners that the court was biased against them. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Morgan, J.—Visitation.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 1086, 666 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farber-v-martin-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack