Gomez v. Lozado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gomez v. Lozado

53 A.D.2d 614, 384 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13300

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

DecidedJune 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 614 (Gomez v. Lozado) 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

Gomez v. Lozado, 53 A.D.2d 614, 384 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding to obtain custody of an infant, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 18, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded custody to [615]*615respondent. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and writ sustained. The findings of fact are affirmed. Respondent is directed to return the infant to the custody of petitioner, his natural father, within 10 days after the termination of the present school term. Petitioner was found to be a fit parent and not to have abandoned his son. Under the circumstances he is entitled to custody as against the respondent (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 51 AD2d 544; Matter of Spence-Chapin Adoption Serv. v Polk, 29 NY2d 196). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding to obtain custody of an infant, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 18, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded custody to [615]*615respondent. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and writ sustained. The findings of fact are affirmed. Respondent is directed to return the infant to the custody of petitioner, his natural father, within 10 days after the termination of the present school term. Petitioner was found to be a fit parent and not to have abandoned his son. Under the circumstances he is entitled to custody as against the respondent (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 51 AD2d 544; Matter of Spence-Chapin Adoption Serv. v Polk, 29 NY2d 196). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Damiani, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 614, 384 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-lozado-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack