Hamersky v. Hamersky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamersky v. Hamersky

290 A.D.2d 414, 736 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 253

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 414 (Hamersky v. Hamersky) 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

Hamersky v. Hamersky, 290 A.D.2d 414, 736 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated March 30, 2000, as awarded the plaintiff custody of the parties’ child, directed him to pay child support in the amount of $153 per week, and awarded the plaintiff a distributive award in the sum of $6,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The evidence established that the defendant father interfered with the relationship between the child and the plaintiff mother. Such action is “so inconsistent with the best interests of the child that it raises, by itself, a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent” (Gago v Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565, 566; see, Matter of Carl J.B. v Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736, 737; Skolnick v Skolnick, 142 AD2d 570, 571). As such, the Supreme Court’s determination to award custody to the plaintiff has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Carl J.B. v Dorothy T., supra; Skolnick v Skolnick, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated March 30, 2000, as awarded the plaintiff custody of the parties’ child, directed him to pay child support in the amount of $153 per week, and awarded the plaintiff a distributive award in the sum of $6,500.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The evidence established that the defendant father interfered with the relationship between the child and the plaintiff mother. Such action is “so inconsistent with the best interests of the child that it raises, by itself, a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent” (Gago v Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565, 566; see, Matter of Carl J.B. v Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736, 737; Skolnick v Skolnick, 142 AD2d 570, 571). As such, the Supreme Court’s determination to award custody to the plaintiff has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Carl J.B. v Dorothy T., supra; Skolnick v Skolnick, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 414, 736 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamersky-v-hamersky-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack