Mandry v. Reyes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mandry v. Reyes

294 A.D.2d 142, 740 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668

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

DecidedMay 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 142 (Mandry v. Reyes) 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

Mandry v. Reyes, 294 A.D.2d 142, 740 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Sarah Schechter, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1997, after a hearing, awarding custody of the subject child to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that a change in custody is in the child’s best interests accords with the weight of the evidence showing, among other things, that respondent had deliberately frustrated petitioner’s visitation rights (see, Victor L. v Darlene L., 251 AD2d 178, 179, lv denied 92 NY2d 816), and that the child, who had been living with petitioner for some six months prior to the hearing pursuant to a temporary custody order, is thriving under petitioner’s care and guidance in her comfortable and stable home (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-174). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Sarah Schechter, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1997, after a hearing, awarding custody of the subject child to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that a change in custody is in the child’s best interests accords with the weight of the evidence showing, among other things, that respondent had deliberately frustrated petitioner’s visitation rights (see, Victor L. v Darlene L., 251 AD2d 178, 179, lv denied 92 NY2d 816), and that the child, who had been living with petitioner for some six months prior to the hearing pursuant to a temporary custody order, is thriving under petitioner’s care and guidance in her comfortable and stable home (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-174). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 142, 740 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandry-v-reyes-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack