Kosinski v. Mahoney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kosinski v. Mahoney

207 A.D.2d 1014, 617 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10278

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 1014 (Kosinski v. Mahoney) 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

Kosinski v. Mahoney, 207 A.D.2d 1014, 617 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Onondaga County Family Court (Buck, J.). We add only that the contention of respondent that the court erred in not obtaining a psychological evaluation is without merit. The decision whether to direct a psychological or social evaluation in a child custody dispute is within the sound discretion of the court (see, Kesseler v Kesseler, 10 NY2d 445, 452, rearg denied 11 NY2d 721, mot to amend remittitur granted 11 NY2d 716; Family Ct Act § 251). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the child "displayed emotional problems which would make the assistance of psychological experts necessary” (Mascoli v Mascoli, 132 AD2d 653, 654; see, Matter of Clark v Dunn, 195 AD2d 811, 814; cf., Giralda v Giraldo, 85 AD2d 164). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Onondaga County Family Court (Buck, J.). We add only that the contention of respondent that the court erred in not obtaining a psychological evaluation is without merit. The decision whether to direct a psychological or social evaluation in a child custody dispute is within the sound discretion of the court (see, Kesseler v Kesseler, 10 NY2d 445, 452, rearg denied 11 NY2d 721, mot to amend remittitur granted 11 NY2d 716; Family Ct Act § 251). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the child "displayed emotional problems which would make the assistance of psychological experts necessary” (Mascoli v Mascoli, 132 AD2d 653, 654; see, Matter of Clark v Dunn, 195 AD2d 811, 814; cf., Giralda v Giraldo, 85 AD2d 164). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 1014, 617 N.Y.S.2d 696, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kosinski-v-mahoney-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack