Inzeo v. Inzeo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Inzeo v. Inzeo

213 A.D.2d 598, 624 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3235

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 598 (Inzeo v. Inzeo) 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

Inzeo v. Inzeo, 213 A.D.2d 598, 624 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered April 7, 1994, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded custody of the parties’ two children to the defendant.

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

There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the trial court’s custody award. Therefore, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Crum v Crum, 122 AD2d 771; cf., Matter of King v King, 166 AD2d 750; Setty v Koeneke, 148 AD2d 520). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered April 7, 1994, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded custody of the parties’ two children to the defendant.

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

There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the trial court’s custody award. Therefore, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal (see, Crum v Crum, 122 AD2d 771; cf., Matter of King v King, 166 AD2d 750; Setty v Koeneke, 148 AD2d 520). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 598, 624 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inzeo-v-inzeo-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack