John v. John

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

John v. John

214 A.D.2d 536, 625 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3520

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

DecidedApril 3, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 536 (John v. John) 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

John v. John, 214 A.D.2d 536, 625 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated March 9, 1993, as, after a nonjury trial, granted custody of the infant children to the plaintiff and limited her visitation rights.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that, while the defendant is a competent parent, the best interests of the parties’ children are served by permitting them to remain with the plaintiff (see, Matter of Ebert v Ebert, 38 NY2d 700, [537]*537704; see also, Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 771; Mitzner v Mitzner, 209 AD2d 487). Since the determination of the Supreme Court awarding the plaintiff custody of the children and limiting the visitation of the defendant is fully supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, it shall not be disturbed on appeal (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173; see also, Alanna M. v Duncan M., 204 AD2d 409; Kuncman v Kuncman, 188 AD2d 517). Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated March 9, 1993, as, after a nonjury trial, granted custody of the infant children to the plaintiff and limited her visitation rights.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that, while the defendant is a competent parent, the best interests of the parties’ children are served by permitting them to remain with the plaintiff (see, Matter of Ebert v Ebert, 38 NY2d 700, [537]*537704; see also, Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 771; Mitzner v Mitzner, 209 AD2d 487). Since the determination of the Supreme Court awarding the plaintiff custody of the children and limiting the visitation of the defendant is fully supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, it shall not be disturbed on appeal (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173; see also, Alanna M. v Duncan M., 204 AD2d 409; Kuncman v Kuncman, 188 AD2d 517). Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 536, 625 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-v-john-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack