Garber v. Cooper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garber v. Cooper

40 A.D.2d 1077, 339 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3127

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1077 (Garber v. Cooper) 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

Garber v. Cooper, 40 A.D.2d 1077, 339 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In affirming the order modifying the order of support herein by enlarging petitioner’s visitation rights with his six-year-old daughter and by directing that the name of the child’s step-parent shall not be substituted for her given name, we are not in any sense giving approval to the court’s rejection of the materiality and competency of medical testimony in cases involving visitation rights or the custody of children. In response to the respondent-appellant’s offer of medical proof as to the child being disturbed by the visitation by the petitioner the court stated in the course of its ruling, “ All of these experts are out, insofar as I am concerned * * * Now, I can send this kid out today and get a letter and whatever that says would be diametrically opposed * * * I will get a doctor on the stand here that will say what your man says and I will get another doctor to say that he is wrong.” The: usefulness and propriety of such proof has long been recognized by our courts (Bender v. Bender, 33 A D 2d 546; Matter of Glass v. Glass, 31 A D 2d 758; People ex rel. Fields v. Kaufmann, 9 A D 2d 375) and the injudicious and arbitrary treatment of the offer of proof cannot be accepted as a sound basis for the court’s ruling. However, in view of the admitted strong animosity existing between the parties and the hostile attitude of the mother toward visitation by the father, it would appear that the child’s attitudes- and emotional reactions as they might be demonstrated to a physician would be strongly influenced by the attitude of the mother who had her under her charge and control. Under all the circumstances presented, we would consider medical testimony as being of very questionable value and entitled to little weight in resolving the issue presented. (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, amending support order.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In affirming the order modifying the order of support herein by enlarging petitioner’s visitation rights with his six-year-old daughter and by directing that the name of the child’s step-parent shall not be substituted for her given name, we are not in any sense giving approval to the court’s rejection of the materiality and competency of medical testimony in cases involving visitation rights or the custody of children. In response to the respondent-appellant’s offer of medical proof as to the child being disturbed by the visitation by the petitioner the court stated in the course of its ruling, “ All of these experts are out, insofar as I am concerned * * * Now, I can send this kid out today and get a letter and whatever that says would be diametrically opposed * * * I will get a doctor on the stand here that will say what your man says and I will get another doctor to say that he is wrong.” The: usefulness and propriety of such proof has long been recognized by our courts (Bender v. Bender, 33 A D 2d 546; Matter of Glass v. Glass, 31 A D 2d 758; People ex rel. Fields v. Kaufmann, 9 A D 2d 375) and the injudicious and arbitrary treatment of the offer of proof cannot be accepted as a sound basis for the court’s ruling. However, in view of the admitted strong animosity existing between the parties and the hostile attitude of the mother toward visitation by the father, it would appear that the child’s attitudes- and emotional reactions as they might be demonstrated to a physician would be strongly influenced by the attitude of the mother who had her under her charge and control. Under all the circumstances presented, we would consider medical testimony as being of very questionable value and entitled to little weight in resolving the issue presented. (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, amending support order.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1077, 339 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garber-v-cooper-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack