Marks v. Marks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marks v. Marks

133 A.D.2d 742, 520 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51785

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 742 (Marks v. Marks) 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

Marks v. Marks, 133 A.D.2d 742, 520 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated July 22, 1987, as, in effect, granted the defendant husband’s motion to modify his pendente lite visitation rights with the parties’ children to include certain overnight visitation.

[743]*743Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

In view of the serious and conflicting allegations of the parties, it was error for the trial court not to hear the testimony of all proposed witnesses with respect to the question of custody and visitation prior to resolving the issue of overnight visitation (see, Mosesku v Mosesku, 108 AD2d 795). Moreover, the trial court should have made specific findings of fact prior to issuing its order (see, Mosesku v Mosesku, supra). We note that our determination is not intended to and should not influence the trial court’s final decision with respect to custody and visitation after the completion of the trial on those issues. Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Hooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated July 22, 1987, as, in effect, granted the defendant husband’s motion to modify his pendente lite visitation rights with the parties’ children to include certain overnight visitation.

[743]*743Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

In view of the serious and conflicting allegations of the parties, it was error for the trial court not to hear the testimony of all proposed witnesses with respect to the question of custody and visitation prior to resolving the issue of overnight visitation (see, Mosesku v Mosesku, 108 AD2d 795). Moreover, the trial court should have made specific findings of fact prior to issuing its order (see, Mosesku v Mosesku, supra). We note that our determination is not intended to and should not influence the trial court’s final decision with respect to custody and visitation after the completion of the trial on those issues. Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Hooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 742, 520 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-marks-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack