Lamkins v. Goddeau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lamkins v. Goddeau

193 A.D.2d 832, 598 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4644

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

DecidedMay 6, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 832 (Lamkins v. Goddeau) 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

Lamkins v. Goddeau, 193 A.D.2d 832, 598 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Weiss, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), entered July 8, 1991, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for custody of the parties’ children.

Petitioner and respondent lived together from 1985 to 1989 in a relationship that produced two children, Edward, III (born Oct. 19, 1987) and Mandy (born Mar. 31, 1990). The end of the relationship resulted in cross petitions for custody of the children and, following a hearing, Family Court awarded custody to petitioner. This appeal by respondent ensued.

The arguments are directed to the weight of the evidence, credibility of witnesses and the interpretation of the evidence. However, Family Court failed to make any findings of fact essential to its conclusion on which party should have custody (see, CPLR 4213 [b]; Matter of Kyesha A., 176 AD2d 381; Giordano v Giordano, 93 AD2d 310, 312; see also, Dworetsky v Dworetsky, 152 AD2d 895, 896). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to Family Court for a detailed statement of the facts that it deemed essential to its determination.

Levine, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Clinton County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

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

Weiss, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), entered July 8, 1991, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for custody of the parties’ children.

Petitioner and respondent lived together from 1985 to 1989 in a relationship that produced two children, Edward, III (born Oct. 19, 1987) and Mandy (born Mar. 31, 1990). The end of the relationship resulted in cross petitions for custody of the children and, following a hearing, Family Court awarded custody to petitioner. This appeal by respondent ensued.

The arguments are directed to the weight of the evidence, credibility of witnesses and the interpretation of the evidence. However, Family Court failed to make any findings of fact essential to its conclusion on which party should have custody (see, CPLR 4213 [b]; Matter of Kyesha A., 176 AD2d 381; Giordano v Giordano, 93 AD2d 310, 312; see also, Dworetsky v Dworetsky, 152 AD2d 895, 896). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to Family Court for a detailed statement of the facts that it deemed essential to its determination.

Levine, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Clinton County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 832, 598 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamkins-v-goddeau-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack