Gould v. Gould

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gould v. Gould

261 A.D. 904, 25 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8033

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 904 (Gould v. Gould) 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

Gould v. Gould, 261 A.D. 904, 25 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for separation brought by the appellant-wife against the respondent-husband, the appellant was granted a decree of separation. The judgment, which was entered October 24, 1940, awarded to the plaintiff the custody of the only child, the issue of the marriage, then one year old, with the right of visitation to the defendant on Saturdays or Sundays from one-thirty p. m. until five p. m. By order to show cause dated November 18, 1940, before a justice other than the one who tried the case, the defendant sought and secured an amendment to the judgment so that he was granted the entire custody of the child one day each week and legal holidays from one p. m. to five-thirty p. m. From such order the plaintiff appeals. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to amend judgment denied, with ten dollars costs. It was an improper exercise of the court’s discretion to accept jurisdiction under the circumstances. (Powers v. Powers, 119 App. Div. 436.) In addition, no substantial change of circumstances was established. The custodial provisions in the modified judgment are not for the best interests of a child of such tender years. It may be that as the child grows older the respondent will be entitled to partial custody, but such division of custody at this time would be bound to interfere with the child’s routine and would be detrimental to it. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for separation brought by the appellant-wife against the respondent-husband, the appellant was granted a decree of separation. The judgment, which was entered October 24, 1940, awarded to the plaintiff the custody of the only child, the issue of the marriage, then one year old, with the right of visitation to the defendant on Saturdays or Sundays from one-thirty p. m. until five p. m. By order to show cause dated November 18, 1940, before a justice other than the one who tried the case, the defendant sought and secured an amendment to the judgment so that he was granted the entire custody of the child one day each week and legal holidays from one p. m. to five-thirty p. m. From such order the plaintiff appeals. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to amend judgment denied, with ten dollars costs. It was an improper exercise of the court’s discretion to accept jurisdiction under the circumstances. (Powers v. Powers, 119 App. Div. 436.) In addition, no substantial change of circumstances was established. The custodial provisions in the modified judgment are not for the best interests of a child of such tender years. It may be that as the child grows older the respondent will be entitled to partial custody, but such division of custody at this time would be bound to interfere with the child’s routine and would be detrimental to it. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 904, 25 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gould-v-gould-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack