In re Michael C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Michael C.

282 A.D.2d 407, 723 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4101

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

DecidedApril 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 407 (In re Michael C.) 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 Michael C., 282 A.D.2d 407, 723 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2000, which, inter alia, changed custody of the parties’ child from the father to the mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother’s oral application for a change of custody, together with Family Court’s statement, placed on the record during three successive hearing dates, that it was considering a change in custody, afforded the father adequate notice that a change of custody was under consideration. No objections were raised to the court’s reconsideration of the custody issue; the court heard testimony from the parties and witnesses subject to cross-examination on that issue; and no objections were raised to the admissibility of the evidence (cf., Seidenberg v Seidenberg, 19 AD2d 676; Matter of Fisk v Fisk, 274 AD2d 691, 692). The record supports the finding that the father’s conduct, including interference with the mother’s visitation and attempts to alienate the child from the mother, made the father a less fit parent than the mother, and warranted a change in custody (see, Janecka v Franklin, 150 AD2d 755). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about February 22, 2000, which, inter alia, changed custody of the parties’ child from the father to the mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother’s oral application for a change of custody, together with Family Court’s statement, placed on the record during three successive hearing dates, that it was considering a change in custody, afforded the father adequate notice that a change of custody was under consideration. No objections were raised to the court’s reconsideration of the custody issue; the court heard testimony from the parties and witnesses subject to cross-examination on that issue; and no objections were raised to the admissibility of the evidence (cf., Seidenberg v Seidenberg, 19 AD2d 676; Matter of Fisk v Fisk, 274 AD2d 691, 692). The record supports the finding that the father’s conduct, including interference with the mother’s visitation and attempts to alienate the child from the mother, made the father a less fit parent than the mother, and warranted a change in custody (see, Janecka v Franklin, 150 AD2d 755). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 407, 723 N.Y.S.2d 670, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-c-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack