In re Donald W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Donald W.

225 A.D.2d 701, 639 N.Y.2d 931, 639 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2626

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 701 (In re Donald W.) 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

In re Donald W., 225 A.D.2d 701, 639 N.Y.2d 931, 639 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The Family Court properly denied the petitioner’s application on the ground that he failed to demonstrate "good cause” as required by Domestic Relations Law § 114. The reason proffered by the petitioner in his initial application to the Family Court, i.e., he wanted it for his "files”, was patently insufficient. The medical and psychological grounds proffered by the petitioner are presented for the first time on appeal and are therefore not properly before this Court. In any event, they are insufficient because they have not been credibly substantiated by affidavits from health professional experts (see generally, Matter of Linda F. M., 52 NY2d 236, 240; Matter of Wilson, 153 AD2d 748; Matter of Chattman v Bennett, 57 AD2d 618). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

The Family Court properly denied the petitioner’s application on the ground that he failed to demonstrate "good cause” as required by Domestic Relations Law § 114. The reason proffered by the petitioner in his initial application to the Family Court, i.e., he wanted it for his "files”, was patently insufficient. The medical and psychological grounds proffered by the petitioner are presented for the first time on appeal and are therefore not properly before this Court. In any event, they are insufficient because they have not been credibly substantiated by affidavits from health professional experts (see generally, Matter of Linda F. M., 52 NY2d 236, 240; Matter of Wilson, 153 AD2d 748; Matter of Chattman v Bennett, 57 AD2d 618). Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 701, 639 N.Y.2d 931, 639 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-donald-w-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack