McCarthy v. Braiman

125 A.D.2d 572, 510 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62864
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 572 (McCarthy v. Braiman) 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
McCarthy v. Braiman, 125 A.D.2d 572, 510 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— In a proceeding commenced pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated February 21, 1985, which dismissed the petition.

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

We cannot say that the findings of the Family Court were not supported by the credible evidence and that a different determination is warranted (Strauf v Ettson Enters., 106 AD2d 737). The greatest deference should be given to the decision of the hearing Judge who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered (Arnold v State of New York, 108 AD2d 1021, appeal dismissed 65 [573]*573NY2d 723). Moreover, the petitioner’s testimony is riddled with inconsistencies and it is clear that the daughter has been influenced by her mother’s hostility towards the respondent since the daughter never informed the respondent of her move to Florida, never gave him her new address and did not even inform him of her upcoming marriage, much less invite him to her wedding.

The evidence indicates that the daughter has actively abandoned her father, the respondent herein, by her renunciation of his chosen religious affiliation, and of his surname (see, Cohen v Schnepf, 94 AD2d 783). Moreover, her behavior towards him whenever they would meet was so hostile as to justify his belief of her abandonment of him, and his desire to avoid the relationship in the future (see, Matter of Parker v Stage, 43 NY2d 128). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Kuechenmeister v. Kuechenmeister
2018 NY Slip Op 1311 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of V.C. v. J.S.
2007 NY Slip Op 51365(U) (Oswego Family Court, 2007)
Matter of Lanigan v. A.T.
2007 NY Slip Op 27286 (Oswego Family Court, 2007)
Lanigan ex rel. C.F. v. A.T.
16 Misc. 3d 968 (NYC Family Court, 2007)
Matter of Joleene D.R. v. Robert J.W.
2007 NY Slip Op 51201(U) (Oswego Family Court, 2007)
Matter of Lanigan v. Simeon R.
2005 NY Slip Op 50810(U) (Oswego Family Court, 2005)
Matter of Kent v. Kent
2005 NY Slip Op 50842(U) (Bronx Family Court, 2005)
Guzzi v. Tsicalos
279 A.D.2d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Desilets v. Desilets
262 A.D.2d 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Commissioner of Social Services v. Jones-Gamble
227 A.D.2d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Rubino v. Morgan
224 A.D.2d 903 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Tina P. v. Craig B.
224 A.D.2d 933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Niagara County Department of Social Services v. Samuel M.
222 A.D.2d 1071 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Erie County Department of Social Services v. Theodore D.
217 A.D.2d 997 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re Karrie B.
207 A.D.2d 1002 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Niagara County Department of Social Services ex rel. Kimmie W. v. Randy M.
206 A.D.2d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Villota v. Zelenak
203 A.D.2d 370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Nankervis v. Nankervis
174 A.D.2d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Alamo v. Alamo
168 A.D.2d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Consentino v. Sweeney
143 A.D.2d 971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.2d 572, 510 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-braiman-nyappdiv-1986.