Lyritzis v. Lyritzis

55 A.D.2d 946, 391 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10232
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 31, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 946 (Lyritzis v. Lyritzis) 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
Lyritzis v. Lyritzis, 55 A.D.2d 946, 391 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff husband was awarded a judgment of divorce, he appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 4, 1976, which, after a hearing, inter alia, (1) awarded defendant sole and exclusive custody of the child of the marriage, (2) fixed his visitation rights, (3) required him to post a performance bond and (4) directed him to pay defendant’s attorney’s fees and disbursements. Order modified, on the facts, by deleting therefrom the provision requiring the posting of a performance bond. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to respondent. Both parties to this struggle for custody of their six-year-old son agree that the prior arrangement of joint custody, four days a week to plaintiff and three days a week to defendant, must be modified for the good of the child. The experts who testified at the hearing agree. Both parents are fit for the role of exclusive custodian, but a choice, however painful for the parents and difficult for the court, must be made for the best interest of the child (see Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429). A review of the voluminous record on appeal indicates that Special Term exercised sound discretion in awarding sole and exclusive custody of the now school-age son to defendant, with liberal visitation rights to plaintiff. The requirement imposed on plaintiff that he post a performance bond as a condition precedent to the removal of his son from the United States during periods of visitation and summer vacation was not warranted. The award of counsel fees and disbursements was appropriate and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Schoonheim v. Schoonheim
92 A.D.2d 474 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Markus v. Markus
75 A.D.2d 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
McCullough v. Hudspeth
389 A.2d 1242 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1978)
Dodd v. Dodd
93 Misc. 2d 641 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.2d 946, 391 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyritzis-v-lyritzis-nyappdiv-1977.