Klestinec v. Smolinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klestinec v. Smolinski

306 A.D.2d 909, 761 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6743

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

DecidedJune 13, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 909 (Klestinec v. Smolinski) 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

Klestinec v. Smolinski, 306 A.D.2d 909, 761 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from [910]*910an order of Family Court, Ontario County (Harvey, J.), entered December 14, 2001, which granted the petition and modified the existing custody arrangement by awarding sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the petition and modified the existing custody arrangement by awarding sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner. “The relationship of the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that joint custody was no longer feasible and thus [petitioner] established a ‘change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest [s] of the child’ ” (Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824, 825 [2002], quoting Matter of Irwin v Neyland, 213 AD2d 773 [1995]). Further, the record supports the court’s determination that the child’s best interests will be served by awarding primary placement to petitioner (see Matter of Schimmel v Schimmel, 262 AD2d 990, 990-991 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 817 [1999]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from [910]*910an order of Family Court, Ontario County (Harvey, J.), entered December 14, 2001, which granted the petition and modified the existing custody arrangement by awarding sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the petition and modified the existing custody arrangement by awarding sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner. “The relationship of the parties had deteriorated to such an extent that joint custody was no longer feasible and thus [petitioner] established a ‘change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest [s] of the child’ ” (Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824, 825 [2002], quoting Matter of Irwin v Neyland, 213 AD2d 773 [1995]). Further, the record supports the court’s determination that the child’s best interests will be served by awarding primary placement to petitioner (see Matter of Schimmel v Schimmel, 262 AD2d 990, 990-991 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 817 [1999]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 909, 761 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klestinec-v-smolinski-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack