Matter of Liliana C. v. Jose M.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Liliana C. v. Jose M.C.

128 A.D.3d 496, 9 N.Y.S.3d 241

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

DecidedMay 14, 2015

Docket15107

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 496 (Matter of Liliana C. v. Jose M.C.) 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

Matter of Liliana C. v. Jose M.C., 128 A.D.3d 496, 9 N.Y.S.3d 241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Ref.), entered on or about June 13, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a hearing, granted petitioner mother’s application for sole legal and physical custody of the subject child Ashley C., with visitation to respondent father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the child to award custody of her to the mother, consistent with the child’s request. The father testified that the mother and he were unable to communicate or cooperate with each other, so joint custody was not a feasible option (see Braiman v Braiman, *497 44 NY2d 584, 589-590 [1978]; see also Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995, 998 [1982]). The father had moved out of state during the course of the proceedings, and an award of sole custody to him would have required uprooting the child from her home, sibling, friends and school, where she was doing well. Moreover, there is no support for the father’s claim of gender bias on the part of the Referee (see Seborovski v Kirschtein, 117 AD3d 627 [1st Dept 2014]).

We have considered the father’s remaining arguments, including his claim that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel, and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.R, Saxe, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Ref.), entered on or about June 13, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a hearing, granted petitioner mother’s application for sole legal and physical custody of the subject child Ashley C., with visitation to respondent father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the child to award custody of her to the mother, consistent with the child’s request. The father testified that the mother and he were unable to communicate or cooperate with each other, so joint custody was not a feasible option (see Braiman v Braiman, *497 44 NY2d 584, 589-590 [1978]; see also Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995, 998 [1982]). The father had moved out of state during the course of the proceedings, and an award of sole custody to him would have required uprooting the child from her home, sibling, friends and school, where she was doing well. Moreover, there is no support for the father’s claim of gender bias on the part of the Referee (see Seborovski v Kirschtein, 117 AD3d 627 [1st Dept 2014]).

We have considered the father’s remaining arguments, including his claim that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel, and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.R, Saxe, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 496, 9 N.Y.S.3d 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-liliana-c-v-jose-mc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack