Liza R. v. Lin F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liza R. v. Lin F.

110 A.D.3d 513, 972 N.Y.S.2d 8971

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.3d 513 (Liza R. v. Lin F.) 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

Liza R. v. Lin F., 110 A.D.3d 513, 972 N.Y.S.2d 8971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about July 10, 2012, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the mother’s petition to modify a custody order with respect to the parties’ youngest child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found, after a full evidentiary hearing at which both parents testified, that there was an insufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the custody order, and that such a change was not in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Maureen H. v Samuel G., 104 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2013]). The record shows that the father obtained counseling and tutoring for the child to improve his behavior and academic performance, and that he worked with the child on his homework. By contrast, the mother failed to demonstrate that the child’s problems in school would be ameliorated if custody were transferred to her. The child’s stated preference is not determinative (see Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]), and a forensic examination and report is not necessary.

We have considered the appealing party’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about July 10, 2012, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the mother’s petition to modify a custody order with respect to the parties’ youngest child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found, after a full evidentiary hearing at which both parents testified, that there was an insufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the custody order, and that such a change was not in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Maureen H. v Samuel G., 104 AD3d 470 [1st Dept 2013]). The record shows that the father obtained counseling and tutoring for the child to improve his behavior and academic performance, and that he worked with the child on his homework. By contrast, the mother failed to demonstrate that the child’s problems in school would be ameliorated if custody were transferred to her. The child’s stated preference is not determinative (see Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]), and a forensic examination and report is not necessary.

We have considered the appealing party’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.3d 513, 972 N.Y.S.2d 8971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liza-r-v-lin-f-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack