Ferrotta v. Ferrotta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferrotta v. Ferrotta

83 A.D.2d 850, 441 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15235

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

DecidedAugust 10, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 850 (Ferrotta v. Ferrotta) 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

Ferrotta v. Ferrotta, 83 A.D.2d 850, 441 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding to obtain custody of the parties’ three infant children, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered May 23, 1980, which, after a hearing, awarded custody to the respondent mother, with specific visitation rights to petitioner. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner’s [851]*851brief alleges that the uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Densen-Gerber was a recommendation that custody of the children be with petitioner. We find, however, that she merely stated that “there is no reason he cannot have custody”. This is not a finding that he should have custody. Dr. Densen-Gerber further testified “I have no opinion as to Mrs. Ferrotta [respondent]”. It is manifest that both parties deeply love their children. We find, however, that every significant item of evidence advanced by petitioner to demonstrate that he should have custody of the children and that respondent is unfit to have custody, was directly contradicted, controverted and reasonably explained by respondent’s evidence and that on the record as a whole the decision of the Family Court was fully supported by the evidence. Gulotta, J.P., Cohalan, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding to obtain custody of the parties’ three infant children, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), entered May 23, 1980, which, after a hearing, awarded custody to the respondent mother, with specific visitation rights to petitioner. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner’s [851]*851brief alleges that the uncontroverted testimony of Dr. Densen-Gerber was a recommendation that custody of the children be with petitioner. We find, however, that she merely stated that “there is no reason he cannot have custody”. This is not a finding that he should have custody. Dr. Densen-Gerber further testified “I have no opinion as to Mrs. Ferrotta [respondent]”. It is manifest that both parties deeply love their children. We find, however, that every significant item of evidence advanced by petitioner to demonstrate that he should have custody of the children and that respondent is unfit to have custody, was directly contradicted, controverted and reasonably explained by respondent’s evidence and that on the record as a whole the decision of the Family Court was fully supported by the evidence. Gulotta, J.P., Cohalan, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 850, 441 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrotta-v-ferrotta-nyappdiv-1981.