Matter of Omar B. v. Shantell E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Omar B. v. Shantell E.

131 A.D.3d 891, 16 N.Y.S.3d 732

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2015

Docket15724

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 891 (Matter of Omar B. v. Shantell E.) 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 Omar B. v. Shantell E., 131 A.D.3d 891, 16 N.Y.S.3d 732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about January 13, 2014, which granted sole custody of the subject child to petitioner father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record overwhelmingly supports modification of the prior custody order to insure the child’s best interests (see Matter of James Joseph M. v Rosana R., 32 AD3d 725 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 717 [2006]). The child is well bonded with petitioner and has been thriving under his care for the past three years. Respondent, who has repeatedly put the child in harm’s way, failed to establish that she will be able to place the child’s needs before her own and provide for his welfare and happiness.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Sweeny, Renwick 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 (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about January 13, 2014, which granted sole custody of the subject child to petitioner father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record overwhelmingly supports modification of the prior custody order to insure the child’s best interests (see Matter of James Joseph M. v Rosana R., 32 AD3d 725 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 717 [2006]). The child is well bonded with petitioner and has been thriving under his care for the past three years. Respondent, who has repeatedly put the child in harm’s way, failed to establish that she will be able to place the child’s needs before her own and provide for his welfare and happiness.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Sweeny, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 891, 16 N.Y.S.3d 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-omar-b-v-shantell-e-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack