Martin v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Martin

15 A.D.3d 662, 789 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1985

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 662 (Martin v. Martin) 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

Martin v. Martin, 15 A.D.3d 662, 789 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Boggio, R.), entered July 8, 2003, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s motion to modify the visitation provision contained in an order of the same court entered October 3, 2001.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, there was a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court’s modification of the visitation provision contained in the order entered October 3, 2001 (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 93-95 [1982]; Matter of Taylor v Lumba, 309 AD2d 941 [2003]; Mauter v Mauter, 309 AD2d 737 [2003]; Matter of Morash v Minucci, 299 AD2d 486 [2002]). Furthermore, there was no evidence presented at the [663]*663hearing which warranted the ordering of a psychiatric evaluation of the child (see Guevara v Guevara, 132 AD2d 596 [1987]). H. Miller, J.E, Cozier, S. Miller and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Boggio, R.), entered July 8, 2003, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s motion to modify the visitation provision contained in an order of the same court entered October 3, 2001.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, there was a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court’s modification of the visitation provision contained in the order entered October 3, 2001 (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 93-95 [1982]; Matter of Taylor v Lumba, 309 AD2d 941 [2003]; Mauter v Mauter, 309 AD2d 737 [2003]; Matter of Morash v Minucci, 299 AD2d 486 [2002]). Furthermore, there was no evidence presented at the [663]*663hearing which warranted the ordering of a psychiatric evaluation of the child (see Guevara v Guevara, 132 AD2d 596 [1987]). H. Miller, J.E, Cozier, S. Miller and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 662, 789 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack