Karlsson v. Karlsson

2016 NY Slip Op 8953, 145 A.D.3d 639, 42 N.Y.S.3d 809
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 2016
Docket2573 314224/13
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8953 (Karlsson v. Karlsson) 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
Karlsson v. Karlsson, 2016 NY Slip Op 8953, 145 A.D.3d 639, 42 N.Y.S.3d 809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered March 30, 2015, which awarded sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the parties’ children to plaintiff mother, with parenting time to defendant father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that awarding plaintiff sole legal and primary physical custody would serve the best interests of the children is supported by the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]). The court thoughtfully assessed the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses (see id. at 173), and properly considered the recommendations of the forensic evaluator (see Matter of Cisse v Graham, 120 AD3d 801, 806 [2d Dept 2014], affd 26 NY3d 1103 [2016]). The record shows that plaintiff is more likely to support and encourage the children’s relationship with defendant than defendant is to facilitate a relationship between plaintiff and the children (see *640 Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995 [1982];. William S. v Tynia C., 283 AD2d 327 [1st Dept 2001]; Matter of Damien P.C. v Jennifer H.S., 57 AD3d 295 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 710 [2009]). The Court properly weighed the defendant’s history of making claims to the police, the Administration for Children’s Services and hospital personnel, that were all found to be unsubstantiated.

The court properly determined visitation and parenting time for defendant (see Matter of Thompson v Yu-Thompson, 41 AD3d 487 [2d Dept 2007]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Stepan K. v. Marina M.
2020 NY Slip Op 06952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
J.R. v. M.S.
56 Misc. 3d 975 (New York Supreme Court, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 NY Slip Op 8953, 145 A.D.3d 639, 42 N.Y.S.3d 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karlsson-v-karlsson-nyappdiv-2016.