Kagels v. Kagels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kagels v. Kagels

209 A.D.2d 1020, 619 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12057

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 1020 (Kagels v. Kagels) 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

Kagels v. Kagels, 209 A.D.2d 1020, 619 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12057 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm Family Court’s dismissal of the petition for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court (Halpin, J.). We note only that, although the court erred in awarding permanent custody of the parties’ [1021]*1021three children to respondent without holding a hearing (see, Matter of Goodwin v Goodwin, 193 AD2d 1138), reversal is not required. In response to the petition seeking modification of the custody order, the court held a full hearing and addressed the custody issue de novo. Consequently, petitioner was not prejudiced by the court’s error. By failing to object to the court’s decision to hold in abeyance a neglect petition pending against her until resolution of the custody issue, petitioner failed to preserve for review her argument on appeal that the neglect petition should have been resolved first. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, Halpin, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Wesley and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm Family Court’s dismissal of the petition for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court (Halpin, J.). We note only that, although the court erred in awarding permanent custody of the parties’ [1021]*1021three children to respondent without holding a hearing (see, Matter of Goodwin v Goodwin, 193 AD2d 1138), reversal is not required. In response to the petition seeking modification of the custody order, the court held a full hearing and addressed the custody issue de novo. Consequently, petitioner was not prejudiced by the court’s error. By failing to object to the court’s decision to hold in abeyance a neglect petition pending against her until resolution of the custody issue, petitioner failed to preserve for review her argument on appeal that the neglect petition should have been resolved first. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, Halpin, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Wesley and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 1020, 619 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kagels-v-kagels-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack