Finkbeiner v. Finkbeiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finkbeiner v. Finkbeiner

270 A.D.2d 417, 705 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2964

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 417 (Finkbeiner v. Finkbeiner) 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

Finkbeiner v. Finkbeiner, 270 A.D.2d 417, 705 N.Y.S.2d 268, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a custody proceed[418]*418ing pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), dated March 11, 1999, which awarded custody of the child Kyle to the petitioner father.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that pending a new determination made after a new hearing, custody of the child Kyle shall remain with the father.

The Family Court erred in failing to consider the alleged acts of domestic violence committed by the father in determining whether an award of custody of the child to the father was in the child’s best interests (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1] [a] [4]). The failure to do so requires the Family Court to conduct a new hearing and make a new determination.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the mother’s remaining contentions. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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