King v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. King

216 A.D.2d 962, 629 N.Y.S.2d 158

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 962 (King v. King) 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

King v. King, 216 A.D.2d 962, 629 N.Y.S.2d 158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Family Court that set aside a custodial arrangement, established by agreement of the parties and incorporated in a court order. He contends that such arrangement "should be changed based only upon ' "countervailing circumstances on consideration of the totality of circumstances” ’ ” (Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210-211, quoting [963]*963Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95; see, Matter of Aylesworth v Aylesworth, 207 AD2d 970). Although a preexisting custodial arrangement should be accorded great weight, Family Court was "in the most advantageous position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties” (DeJesus v DeJesus, 208 AD2d 587, 588, citing Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167), and the court’s determination should not be disturbed where, as here, it has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B., 80 AD2d 72, 76). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Auser, J.H.O.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Family Court that set aside a custodial arrangement, established by agreement of the parties and incorporated in a court order. He contends that such arrangement "should be changed based only upon ' "countervailing circumstances on consideration of the totality of circumstances” ’ ” (Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210-211, quoting [963]*963Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95; see, Matter of Aylesworth v Aylesworth, 207 AD2d 970). Although a preexisting custodial arrangement should be accorded great weight, Family Court was "in the most advantageous position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties” (DeJesus v DeJesus, 208 AD2d 587, 588, citing Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167), and the court’s determination should not be disturbed where, as here, it has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B., 80 AD2d 72, 76). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Auser, J.H.O.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 962, 629 N.Y.S.2d 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-king-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack