Jensen v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jensen v. Harris

197 A.D.2d 917, 604 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9387

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 917 (Jensen v. Harris) 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

Jensen v. Harris, 197 A.D.2d 917, 604 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: After trial, Family Court determined that the best interests of the parties’ children would be served by an award of custody to petitioner. The findings of the trial court have a sound and substantial basis in the record and the record shows that the court properly weighed the appropriate factors in its determination of the [918]*918best interests of the children (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-172; Matter of Beyer v Tranelli-Ashe, 195 AD2d 972; Matter of Krebsbach v Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 364, lv denied 81 NY2d 701).

We reject respondent’s contention that the court erred in relying upon the Law Guardian’s recommendation because the Law Guardian had never spoken with the children and was thus unable to communicate their wishes. At the time of trial, the children were two and three years old and, therefore, "not of sufficient maturity to weigh intelligently the factors essential to making a wise choice as to custody” (Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Maas, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: After trial, Family Court determined that the best interests of the parties’ children would be served by an award of custody to petitioner. The findings of the trial court have a sound and substantial basis in the record and the record shows that the court properly weighed the appropriate factors in its determination of the [918]*918best interests of the children (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-172; Matter of Beyer v Tranelli-Ashe, 195 AD2d 972; Matter of Krebsbach v Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 364, lv denied 81 NY2d 701).

We reject respondent’s contention that the court erred in relying upon the Law Guardian’s recommendation because the Law Guardian had never spoken with the children and was thus unable to communicate their wishes. At the time of trial, the children were two and three years old and, therefore, "not of sufficient maturity to weigh intelligently the factors essential to making a wise choice as to custody” (Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Maas, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 917, 604 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jensen-v-harris-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack