Korth v. Cost

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Korth v. Cost

229 A.D.2d 696, 644 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7711

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 11, 1996·Published

Opinion

Spain, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered March 14, 1995, which, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, excluded the Law Guardian of the parties’ children from an in camera hearing with one of the children.

This appeal does not challenge Family Court’s determination dismissing the petitions herein. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.

Notably, there is nothing in the record upon which this Court [697] can determine the basis for Family Court’s exclusion of the Law Guardian from the Lincoln hearing (see, Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270). We reject any practice whereby Law Guardians are routinely excluded from such an important stage of a proceeding (see, Frizzell v Frizzell, 177 AD2d 825, 826; see also, Miller v Miller, 220 AD2d 133).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

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

Spain, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered March 14, 1995, which, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, excluded the Law Guardian of the parties’ children from an in camera hearing with one of the children.

This appeal does not challenge Family Court’s determination dismissing the petitions herein. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.

Notably, there is nothing in the record upon which this Court [697] can determine the basis for Family Court’s exclusion of the Law Guardian from the Lincoln hearing (see, Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270). We reject any practice whereby Law Guardians are routinely excluded from such an important stage of a proceeding (see, Frizzell v Frizzell, 177 AD2d 825, 826; see also, Miller v Miller, 220 AD2d 133).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Korth v. Cost, 229 A.D.2d 696, 644 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

229 A.D.2d 696 (Korth v. Cost) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related