Lamb v. Lamb
This text of 199 A.D.2d 972 (Lamb v. Lamb) 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.
Opinion
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order dismissing his petition for modification of a divorce decree to grant him custody of the infant children. The standard for modifying a prior custody award is well established: the best interests of the children under the prevailing circumstances (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95; Matter of Borst v Borst, 137 AD2d 890, 891; Matter of Robb v McIntosh, 99 AD2d 571). Where modification of an existing custody decree is sought, the prior decree and the circumstances on which it was based must be given great consideration because stability is a significant factor in determining a child’s best interests (Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, supra; Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242, 250). There was no evidence adduced at the hearing that respondent was an unfit [973]*973parent and, in fact, the court-appointed psychologist testified that both parents were equally capable of raising the children. Nor was there any evidence to support petitioner’s allegation that respondent was suffering from a mental illness.
Family Court’s determination was based on the testimony of the witnesses, psychological reports, and an in camera interview with the children. The determination dismissing the petition is a matter addressed to the discretion of the court and we decline to disturb it (see, Matter of Darlene T., 28 NY2d 391, 395; Matter of Robb v McIntosh, supra). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Flemma, J.— Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Callahan, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
199 A.D.2d 972, 608 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamb-v-lamb-nyappdiv-1993.