Foulke v. Foulke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foulke v. Foulke

226 A.D.2d 583, 641 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4413

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

DecidedApril 22, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 583 (Foulke v. Foulke) 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

Foulke v. Foulke, 226 A.D.2d 583, 641 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated June 8,1995, which denied his motion for leave to enroll the parties’ daughter in a private school for kindergarten.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion for leave to enroll the parties’ daughter in a private school for kindergarten. Under the circumstances of this action, the parties would be best served by proceeding toward a speedy trial to resolve disputed issues regarding their daughter’s custody [584]*584and education (see, Lazich v Lazich, 189 AD2d 750; Askinas v Askinas, 155 AD2d 498). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), dated June 8,1995, which denied his motion for leave to enroll the parties’ daughter in a private school for kindergarten.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion for leave to enroll the parties’ daughter in a private school for kindergarten. Under the circumstances of this action, the parties would be best served by proceeding toward a speedy trial to resolve disputed issues regarding their daughter’s custody [584]*584and education (see, Lazich v Lazich, 189 AD2d 750; Askinas v Askinas, 155 AD2d 498). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 583, 641 N.Y.S.2d 573, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foulke-v-foulke-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack