Knapp v. Daugherty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knapp v. Daugherty

238 A.D.2d 509, 657 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4034

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

DecidedApril 21, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 509 (Knapp v. Daugherty) 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

Knapp v. Daugherty, 238 A.D.2d 509, 657 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered April 8, 1996, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for sole legal custody of the parties’ child.

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

The findings of the Family Court on the issue of custody should be accorded great deference on appeal since it was in the best position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174; Matter of Canazon v Canazon, 215 AD2d 652; Klat v Klat, 176 AD2d 922, 923). Its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Canazon v Canazon, supra, at 652; Crum v Crum, 122 AD2d 771). We find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination in this case.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), entered April 8, 1996, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for sole legal custody of the parties’ child.

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

The findings of the Family Court on the issue of custody should be accorded great deference on appeal since it was in the best position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174; Matter of Canazon v Canazon, 215 AD2d 652; Klat v Klat, 176 AD2d 922, 923). Its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Canazon v Canazon, supra, at 652; Crum v Crum, 122 AD2d 771). We find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination in this case.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 509, 657 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-daugherty-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack