In re Emilio A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Emilio A.

213 A.D.2d 362, 624 N.Y.S.2d 407

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 362 (In re Emilio A.) 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 Emilio A., 213 A.D.2d 362, 624 N.Y.S.2d 407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County(HaroldLynch,J.),enteredonoraboutJunelO, 1993,which, insofar as appealed from changed custody of the subject child from respondent, the child’s maternal great aunt, to petitioner, the child’s maternal aunt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s determination that a change of custody would be in the best interests of the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-172; Alan G. v Joan G., 104 AD2d 147, 152), including the opinion of a psychologist who was the only expert called at the hearing, the fact that the child’s sister resides with petitioner, and proof that petitioner would be able to provide a better home environment, better guidance, and better opportunity to pursue higher education (see, Matter of Rebecca B., 204 AD2d 57, 58; Matter of Gant v Higgins, 203 AD2d 23). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County(HaroldLynch,J.),enteredonoraboutJunelO, 1993,which, insofar as appealed from changed custody of the subject child from respondent, the child’s maternal great aunt, to petitioner, the child’s maternal aunt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s determination that a change of custody would be in the best interests of the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-172; Alan G. v Joan G., 104 AD2d 147, 152), including the opinion of a psychologist who was the only expert called at the hearing, the fact that the child’s sister resides with petitioner, and proof that petitioner would be able to provide a better home environment, better guidance, and better opportunity to pursue higher education (see, Matter of Rebecca B., 204 AD2d 57, 58; Matter of Gant v Higgins, 203 AD2d 23). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 362, 624 N.Y.S.2d 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-emilio-a-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack