Ludwig v. Ludwig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ludwig v. Ludwig

229 A.D.2d 1021, 646 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9104

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 1996·Published

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In matters of child custody, "[t]he trial court’s determination, based upon a firsthand assessment of the credibility of witnesses and of the character and temperament of the parents, is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be lightly set aside” (Lenczycki v Lenczycki, 152 AD2d 621, 623). Family Court determined that, despite the ongoing depression suffered by respondent and the effects of prescribed psychotropic medications on her, the children’s interests would be best served by continuing the existing custody arrangement (see, Lenczycki v Lenczycki, supra; cf., Matter of Kamholtz v Kovary, 210 AD2d 813; Nir v Nir, 172 AD2d 651, lv dismissed 78 NY2d 952; Matter of Huehn v Huehn, 103 AD2d 884). That determination, made after "a careful and studied review of all the relevant factors”, is sup-

[1022] ported by the evidence and will not be disturbed (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174). (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Family Court, Strobridge, J.—Custody.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In matters of child custody, "[t]he trial court’s determination, based upon a firsthand assessment of the credibility of witnesses and of the character and temperament of the parents, is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be lightly set aside” (Lenczycki v Lenczycki, 152 AD2d 621, 623). Family Court determined that, despite the ongoing depression suffered by respondent and the effects of prescribed psychotropic medications on her, the children’s interests would be best served by continuing the existing custody arrangement (see, Lenczycki v Lenczycki, supra; cf., Matter of Kamholtz v Kovary, 210 AD2d 813; Nir v Nir, 172 AD2d 651, lv dismissed 78 NY2d 952; Matter of Huehn v Huehn, 103 AD2d 884). That determination, made after "a careful and studied review of all the relevant factors”, is sup-

[1022] ported by the evidence and will not be disturbed (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174). (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Family Court, Strobridge, J.—Custody.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Ludwig v. Ludwig, 229 A.D.2d 1021, 646 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

229 A.D.2d 1021 (Ludwig v. Ludwig) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related