Groth v. Groth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Groth v. Groth

239 A.D.2d 953, 659 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6392

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

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 953 (Groth v. Groth) 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

Groth v. Groth, 239 A.D.2d 953, 659 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Following a hearing, Family Court properly denied the petition seeking modification of a previous custody order. “When there is no indication that a change in custody will substantially enhance the child’s welfare [citation omitted] and the custodial parent is not shown to be unfit or less fit to continue as the proper custodian, the custody arrangement in place should not be disturbed” (Matter of Muzzi v Muzzi, 189 AD2d 1022, 1023; see, Fisher v Fisher, 206 AD2d 910). The evidence does not establish that the mother’s proposed change in the custody arrangement would substantially benefit the children, nor does it establish that the father is unfit or less fit than the mother to care for them. Although the Law Guardian recommended that the petition be granted, it is well settled that the court may in its discretion reject the Law Guardian’s recommendation (see, Zelnik v Zelnik, 196 AD2d 700). (Appeal from Order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Following a hearing, Family Court properly denied the petition seeking modification of a previous custody order. “When there is no indication that a change in custody will substantially enhance the child’s welfare [citation omitted] and the custodial parent is not shown to be unfit or less fit to continue as the proper custodian, the custody arrangement in place should not be disturbed” (Matter of Muzzi v Muzzi, 189 AD2d 1022, 1023; see, Fisher v Fisher, 206 AD2d 910). The evidence does not establish that the mother’s proposed change in the custody arrangement would substantially benefit the children, nor does it establish that the father is unfit or less fit than the mother to care for them. Although the Law Guardian recommended that the petition be granted, it is well settled that the court may in its discretion reject the Law Guardian’s recommendation (see, Zelnik v Zelnik, 196 AD2d 700). (Appeal from Order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Callahan, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 953, 659 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groth-v-groth-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack