Jones v. Houck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Houck

280 A.D.2d 969, 720 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3472

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 969 (Jones v. Houck) 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

Jones v. Houck, 280 A.D.2d 969, 720 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary placement of the child to respondent father. Contrary to petitioner mother’s contention, the court properly weighed the appropriate factors affecting the best interests of the child (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173; Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955, 956), “and the change made to the preexisting custodial arrangement has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Schimmel v Schimmel, 262 AD2d 990, 991, lv denied 93 NY2d 817). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Flemma, J.H.O. — Custody.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary placement of the child to respondent father. Contrary to petitioner mother’s contention, the court properly weighed the appropriate factors affecting the best interests of the child (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173; Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955, 956), “and the change made to the preexisting custodial arrangement has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Schimmel v Schimmel, 262 AD2d 990, 991, lv denied 93 NY2d 817). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Flemma, J.H.O. — Custody.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 969, 720 N.Y.S.2d 878, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-houck-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack