Friedman v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Friedman

8 A.D.3d 276, 777 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7495

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

DecidedJune 1, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 276 (Friedman v. Friedman) 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

Friedman v. Friedman, 8 A.D.3d 276, 777 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered February 27, 2003, which, after a hearing, granted the petition to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and awarded the father permanent custody of the parties’ children.

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

There was an insufficient showing made before the Family Court to justify a second forensic examination of the parties and their children. The mother’s contention that the court-[277]*277appointed expert was biased is unsupported by the record. Further, the mother failed to provide medical evidence that a second evaluation would not jeopardize the best interests of the children (see Becker v Becker, 143 AD2d 561 [1988]).

The Family Court’s determination granting the petition to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and awarding custody of the parties’ children to the father was supported by a substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Darlene T., 28 NY2d 391, 395 [1971]; Matter of Wecker v D'Ambrosio, 6 AD3d 452 [2004]; Matter of Khan v Khan, 236 AD2d 612, 613 [1997]; McDonald v McDonald, 216 AD2d 276, 277 [1995]). S. Miller, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered February 27, 2003, which, after a hearing, granted the petition to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and awarded the father permanent custody of the parties’ children.

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

There was an insufficient showing made before the Family Court to justify a second forensic examination of the parties and their children. The mother’s contention that the court-[277]*277appointed expert was biased is unsupported by the record. Further, the mother failed to provide medical evidence that a second evaluation would not jeopardize the best interests of the children (see Becker v Becker, 143 AD2d 561 [1988]).

The Family Court’s determination granting the petition to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and awarding custody of the parties’ children to the father was supported by a substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Darlene T., 28 NY2d 391, 395 [1971]; Matter of Wecker v D'Ambrosio, 6 AD3d 452 [2004]; Matter of Khan v Khan, 236 AD2d 612, 613 [1997]; McDonald v McDonald, 216 AD2d 276, 277 [1995]). S. Miller, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 276, 777 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-friedman-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack