Melendez v. Melendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melendez v. Melendez

242 A.D.2d 918, 665 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10487

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 918 (Melendez v. Melendez) 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

Melendez v. Melendez, 242 A.D.2d 918, 665 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject respondent’s contention that the determination changing physical custody of the parties’ daughter from respondent to petitioner lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, White v White, 209 AD2d 949, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 924; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211-212). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that petitioner met his burden of showing that the change of custody is in the child’s best interests (see, Matter of Ammann v Ammann, 209 AD2d 1032; see also, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-174). (Appeal from Order of Wyoming County Family Court, Griffith, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject respondent’s contention that the determination changing physical custody of the parties’ daughter from respondent to petitioner lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, White v White, 209 AD2d 949, lv dismissed 85 NY2d 924; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211-212). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that petitioner met his burden of showing that the change of custody is in the child’s best interests (see, Matter of Ammann v Ammann, 209 AD2d 1032; see also, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-174). (Appeal from Order of Wyoming County Family Court, Griffith, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 918, 665 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melendez-v-melendez-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack