Kilstein v. MacDowell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kilstein v. MacDowell

226 A.D.2d 727, 642 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686

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

DecidedApril 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 727 (Kilstein v. MacDowell) 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

Kilstein v. MacDowell, 226 A.D.2d 727, 642 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for custody or visitation pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Clark, J.), dated May 13, 1994, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court’s primary concern in making a determination regarding custody or visitation is the best interests of the child (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Newton v Newton, 210 AD2d 337; Koppenhoefer v Koppenhoefer, 159 AD2d 113). To formulate a sound basis for its action, the court should seek the expertise of other professionals and ascertain the wishes of the children, particularly where they are of a sufficient age to articulate their needs and preferences to the court (Koppenhoefer v Koppenhoefer, supra).

Here, the court appropriately considered the parties’ and the experts’ testimony, the child’s preferences expressed in an in camera interview, and the Law Guardian’s recommendation. The Family Court’s determination was supported by the record and we find no basis to disturb it.

We have examined the father’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for custody or visitation pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Clark, J.), dated May 13, 1994, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court’s primary concern in making a determination regarding custody or visitation is the best interests of the child (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Newton v Newton, 210 AD2d 337; Koppenhoefer v Koppenhoefer, 159 AD2d 113). To formulate a sound basis for its action, the court should seek the expertise of other professionals and ascertain the wishes of the children, particularly where they are of a sufficient age to articulate their needs and preferences to the court (Koppenhoefer v Koppenhoefer, supra).

Here, the court appropriately considered the parties’ and the experts’ testimony, the child’s preferences expressed in an in camera interview, and the Law Guardian’s recommendation. The Family Court’s determination was supported by the record and we find no basis to disturb it.

We have examined the father’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 727, 642 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kilstein-v-macdowell-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack