Maureen H. v. Samuel G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maureen H. v. Samuel G.

104 A.D.3d 470, 960 N.Y.S.2d 416

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 470 (Maureen H. v. Samuel 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

Maureen H. v. Samuel G., 104 A.D.3d 470, 960 N.Y.S.2d 416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[471]*471Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about April 27, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied appellant mother’s petition to modify a prior order of custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There exists no basis upon which to disturb Family Court’s determination, reached after a full evidentiary hearing at which it had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the witnesses, including both parents, that it is in the subject children’s best interest for them to remain in their father’s custody (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; Matter of Nelissa O. v Danny C., 70 AD3d 572, 572-573 [1st Dept 2010]). A sound and substantial basis in the record supports this determination. The children are happy and well cared for by their father who has provided for their medical care and special needs (see Matter of James Joseph M. v Rosana R., 32 AD3d 725, 726 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 806 [2007]; and see Stanat v Stanat, 93 AD2d 114, 116 [1st Dept 1983], lv denied 59 NY2d 605 [1983]).

Appellant’s contention of alleged judicial bias has not been preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record fails to support appellant’s allegation of bias (see Matter of Malinda V., 221 AD2d 549, 549-550 [2d Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 811 [1996]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

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

[471]*471Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about April 27, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied appellant mother’s petition to modify a prior order of custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There exists no basis upon which to disturb Family Court’s determination, reached after a full evidentiary hearing at which it had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the witnesses, including both parents, that it is in the subject children’s best interest for them to remain in their father’s custody (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; Matter of Nelissa O. v Danny C., 70 AD3d 572, 572-573 [1st Dept 2010]). A sound and substantial basis in the record supports this determination. The children are happy and well cared for by their father who has provided for their medical care and special needs (see Matter of James Joseph M. v Rosana R., 32 AD3d 725, 726 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 806 [2007]; and see Stanat v Stanat, 93 AD2d 114, 116 [1st Dept 1983], lv denied 59 NY2d 605 [1983]).

Appellant’s contention of alleged judicial bias has not been preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record fails to support appellant’s allegation of bias (see Matter of Malinda V., 221 AD2d 549, 549-550 [2d Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 811 [1996]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 470, 960 N.Y.S.2d 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maureen-h-v-samuel-g-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack