Home/New York Court of Appeals/Gomez v. Lozado

Gomez v. Lozado

356 N.E.2d 287, 40 N.Y.2d 839, 387 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3011
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 21, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 356 N.E.2d 287 (Gomez v. Lozado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gomez v. Lozado, 356 N.E.2d 287, 40 N.Y.2d 839, 387 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3011 (N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Division reversed, without costs, and the proceeding remitted to the Family Court to review and conduct such additional hearings as may be advisable in light of the principles discussed in Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys (40 NY2d 543), decided herewith.

It should be noted that, in reversing, the Appellate Division affirmed expressly the findings of fact in the Family Court, finding both grandmother and father fit to have custody of the motherless child. The appellate court seems to have accorded a parental primacy which, as developed in the Bennett case (supra), is not as absolute as argued by the father. On the other hand, there are circumstances in this case which require re-evaluation by the Family Court despite its otherwise careful and thoughtful opinion. These circumstances relate to the comparative ages of the grandmother and the father, the legal inability of the grandmother to adopt the child, the fact that the child is in need of the services of a mental health clinic, and, as the grandmother testified, is doing poorly in school. The root of the child’s mental difficulties should be assessed, if that is practicable, in determining the best disposition for the child. The best interest of the child, therefore, would seem to require a greater exploration than has already been done.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

Related

La Croix v. Deyo
88 A.D.2d 1077 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Milli v. Morreale
83 A.D.2d 173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
La Croix v. Deyo
113 Misc. 2d 89 (NYC Family Court, 1981)
Wade C. v. Rachael D.
78 A.D.2d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Dickson v. Lascaris
75 A.D.2d 47 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
In re Sanjivini K.
391 N.E.2d 1316 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
Raysor v. Gabbey
57 A.D.2d 437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Pino v. Pino
57 A.D.2d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
In re Patricia A. W.
89 Misc. 2d 368 (NYC Family Court, 1977)
Robertson v. Robertson
54 A.D.2d 1081 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re Louis F.
54 A.D.2d 104 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Bennett v. Jeffreys
356 N.E.2d 277 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
356 N.E.2d 287, 40 N.Y.2d 839, 387 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-lozado-ny-1976.