Knauff v. Fritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knauff v. Fritz

108 A.D.2d 1081, 485 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43384

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 108 A.D.2d 1081 (Knauff v. Fritz) 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

Knauff v. Fritz, 108 A.D.2d 1081, 485 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), entered December 19, 1983, which dismissed petitioner’s application for a change in custody of the parties’ minor child.

Petitioner sought a change in custody of her son from respondent, her former husband, alleging a change of circumstances and that the emotional and physical welfare of the child require such a change. Following a hearing and an in camera interview with the child and his Law Guardian, Family Court concluded that it would not be in the child’s best interest to alter the custody arrangement and dismissed the petition. The determination should be upheld.

Petitioner contended that Family Court’s denial of her motion for a psychological examination of her son constituted an abuse of its discretion in that the final determination of the court was made without the benefit of this information. In this case, much unlike Giraldo v Giraldo (85 AD2d 164, appeal dismissed 56 NY2d 804), on which petitioner relies, there was before Family Court, in addition to the testimony of the natural parents, an interview with the child and his guardian, testimony of relatives, friends and teachers and a school psychological examination of the child. It is from this wide-based source of helpful evidence that the court made its findings of fact. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that Family Court erred in refusing to order the testing of the child as unneccessary.

We also find that Family Court’s decision declining to change the custody arrangement is supported by the record as a whole. The court considered all relevant factors before arriving at its decision, and its determination should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Van Dyck v Van Dyck, 97 AD2d 909; Matter of Colone v Keyser, 97 AD2d 630, 631).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), entered December 19, 1983, which dismissed petitioner’s application for a change in custody of the parties’ minor child.

Petitioner sought a change in custody of her son from respondent, her former husband, alleging a change of circumstances and that the emotional and physical welfare of the child require such a change. Following a hearing and an in camera interview with the child and his Law Guardian, Family Court concluded that it would not be in the child’s best interest to alter the custody arrangement and dismissed the petition. The determination should be upheld.

Petitioner contended that Family Court’s denial of her motion for a psychological examination of her son constituted an abuse of its discretion in that the final determination of the court was made without the benefit of this information. In this case, much unlike Giraldo v Giraldo (85 AD2d 164, appeal dismissed 56 NY2d 804), on which petitioner relies, there was before Family Court, in addition to the testimony of the natural parents, an interview with the child and his guardian, testimony of relatives, friends and teachers and a school psychological examination of the child. It is from this wide-based source of helpful evidence that the court made its findings of fact. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that Family Court erred in refusing to order the testing of the child as unneccessary.

We also find that Family Court’s decision declining to change the custody arrangement is supported by the record as a whole. The court considered all relevant factors before arriving at its decision, and its determination should not be disturbed (see, Matter of Van Dyck v Van Dyck, 97 AD2d 909; Matter of Colone v Keyser, 97 AD2d 630, 631).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 1081, 485 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knauff-v-fritz-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack