Matter of Parrish P. v. Camille G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Parrish P. v. Camille G.

140 A.D.3d 586, 33 N.Y.S.3d 696

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

DecidedJune 23, 2016

Docket1551

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 586 (Matter of Parrish P. v. Camille G.) 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 Parrish P. v. Camille G., 140 A.D.3d 586, 33 N.Y.S.3d 696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*587 Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Llinet M. Rosado, J.), entered on or about September 28, 2014, which, after a hearing, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child to petitioner father, with parenting time to respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports Family Court’s determination that it is in the child’s best interest to award legal and physical custody to the father (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; see Matter of Carl T. v Yajaira A.C., 95 AD3d 640, 641 [1st Dept 2012]). The father’s testimony demonstrates that he is better able to provide a consistent and stable home environment for the child, and that the child would be able to live with his biological sibling (Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173). Further, the record shows that the mother is unstable in many ways and oblivious to the harmful effects of her actions on the child, including her efforts to eliminate the father from the child’s life (Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995, 998 [1982]). We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Friedman, Richter, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

*587 Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Llinet M. Rosado, J.), entered on or about September 28, 2014, which, after a hearing, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child to petitioner father, with parenting time to respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record supports Family Court’s determination that it is in the child’s best interest to award legal and physical custody to the father (Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; see Matter of Carl T. v Yajaira A.C., 95 AD3d 640, 641 [1st Dept 2012]). The father’s testimony demonstrates that he is better able to provide a consistent and stable home environment for the child, and that the child would be able to live with his biological sibling (Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173). Further, the record shows that the mother is unstable in many ways and oblivious to the harmful effects of her actions on the child, including her efforts to eliminate the father from the child’s life (Bliss v Ach, 56 NY2d 995, 998 [1982]). We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Friedman, Richter, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 586, 33 N.Y.S.3d 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-parrish-p-v-camille-g-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack