Gugino-Toufexis v. Toufexis

132 A.D.2d 995, 518 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49469
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 10, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 132 A.D.2d 995 (Gugino-Toufexis v. Toufexis) 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
Gugino-Toufexis v. Toufexis, 132 A.D.2d 995, 518 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The Hearing Officer, after a lengthy trial, determined that the best interests of the parties’ two daughters, ages 7 and 6, would be advanced by awarding custody to the defendant. The testimony on nearly every issue was in [996]*996conflict, but a reasonable basis exists for the court’s resolution of credibility issues in defendant’s favor. The Hearing Officer found that the defendant was more flexible, considerate, thoughtful, and open in his concern and care for the children and would provide a more stable, calm and relaxed home environment that would positively impact on the children. In the Hearing Officer’s view, defendant could better promote the emotional and intellectual development of the children in the long run and would promote the relationship of the children with plaintiff. These findings have a sound and substantial basis in the record, and it is clear that the Hearing Officer has carefully weighed those factors relevant to a determination of best interests of the children (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172; Matter of Saunders v Saunders, 60 AD2d 701). Under the circumstances, there is no basis for us to disturb the findings of the Hearing Officer (see, Pawelski v Buchholtz, 91 AD2d 1200). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Heffron, J. H. O.—custody.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Beyer v. Tranelli-Ashe
195 A.D.2d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Devlin v. Devlin
193 A.D.2d 1130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Forjone v. Platner
191 A.D.2d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Gugino-Toufexis v. Toufexis
154 A.D.2d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Erck v. Erck
147 A.D.2d 921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.2d 995, 518 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gugino-toufexis-v-toufexis-nyappdiv-1987.