Gandia v. Rivera-Gandia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gandia v. Rivera-Gandia

260 A.D.2d 321, 689 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4375

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

DecidedApril 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 321 (Gandia v. Rivera-Gandia) 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

Gandia v. Rivera-Gandia, 260 A.D.2d 321, 689 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Gische, J.), entered on or about December 15, 1998, which, in an action for divorce, inter alia, granted plaintiff temporary custody of the parties’ child pending trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Temporary custody of the child was properly awarded to plaintiff upon a record showing that such was being urged by both the Law Guardian and the forensic evaluator and that the child’s sister was residing with plaintiff. We further note that it was defendant’s own actions which caused her to be unrepresented by counsel when the award of temporary custody was made. Defendant’s remedy is a prompt trial at which she will have a full opportunity to present evidence (see, Meltzer v Meltzer, 38 AD2d 522; Portnof v Portnof, 188 AD2d 411). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Gische, J.), entered on or about December 15, 1998, which, in an action for divorce, inter alia, granted plaintiff temporary custody of the parties’ child pending trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Temporary custody of the child was properly awarded to plaintiff upon a record showing that such was being urged by both the Law Guardian and the forensic evaluator and that the child’s sister was residing with plaintiff. We further note that it was defendant’s own actions which caused her to be unrepresented by counsel when the award of temporary custody was made. Defendant’s remedy is a prompt trial at which she will have a full opportunity to present evidence (see, Meltzer v Meltzer, 38 AD2d 522; Portnof v Portnof, 188 AD2d 411). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 321, 689 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gandia-v-rivera-gandia-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack