Gise v. Gise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gise v. Gise

54 A.D.2d 684, 387 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14232

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 684 (Gise v. Gise) 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

Gise v. Gise, 54 A.D.2d 684, 387 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in which the defendant wife was granted a judgment of divorce, which judgment awarded her custody of the infant issue of the marriage, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 8, 1976, which denied her motion to dismiss the plaintiff husband’s application to modify the custody provisions of the said judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and application dismissed. No fact findings were presented for review. On this record, we [685]*685hold that the best interests of the children require that New York not entertain jurisdiction of the husband’s application to modify the custody provisions of the judgment of divorce (see Bruno v Borak, 52 AD2d 800; Anonymous v Anonymous, 62 Misc 2d 758; cf. Matter of De Filipo v De Filipo, 45 AD2d 710). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action in which the defendant wife was granted a judgment of divorce, which judgment awarded her custody of the infant issue of the marriage, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 8, 1976, which denied her motion to dismiss the plaintiff husband’s application to modify the custody provisions of the said judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and application dismissed. No fact findings were presented for review. On this record, we [685]*685hold that the best interests of the children require that New York not entertain jurisdiction of the husband’s application to modify the custody provisions of the judgment of divorce (see Bruno v Borak, 52 AD2d 800; Anonymous v Anonymous, 62 Misc 2d 758; cf. Matter of De Filipo v De Filipo, 45 AD2d 710). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 684, 387 N.Y.S.2d 607, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gise-v-gise-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack