Mikolinski v. Farnsworth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mikolinski v. Farnsworth

249 A.D.2d 956, 671 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5072

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 956 (Mikolinski v. Farnsworth) 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

Mikolinski v. Farnsworth, 249 A.D.2d 956, 671 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Amended order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in modifying a prior custody order by awarding petitioner father custody of the parties’ infant son. We give due deference to the factual findings of Family Court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility, and its determination will not be disturbed where, as here, it has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174; Matter of De Losh v De Losh, 235 AD2d 851, 853, lv denied 89 NY2d 813). The contention of respondent that she was denied effective assistance of counsel lacks merit (see generally, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-800; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Amended Order of Oswego County Family Court, McCarthy, J. — Custody.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Amended order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in modifying a prior custody order by awarding petitioner father custody of the parties’ infant son. We give due deference to the factual findings of Family Court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility, and its determination will not be disturbed where, as here, it has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174; Matter of De Losh v De Losh, 235 AD2d 851, 853, lv denied 89 NY2d 813). The contention of respondent that she was denied effective assistance of counsel lacks merit (see generally, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-800; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Amended Order of Oswego County Family Court, McCarthy, J. — Custody.) Present— Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 956, 671 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mikolinski-v-farnsworth-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack