Miller v. Osik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Osik

94 A.D.3d 1124, 942 N.Y.S.2d 802

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

DecidedApril 24, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 1124 (Miller v. Osik) 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

Miller v. Osik, 94 A.D.3d 1124, 942 N.Y.S.2d 802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated November 1, 2010, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify an order of custody and visitation of the same court, dated April 12, 2007, by awarding him sole custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order dated November 1, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence established that the mother engaged in a course of conduct which intentionally interfered with the relationship between the child and the father. Such action is “so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as custodial parent” (Matter of Chebuske v Burnhard-Vogt, 284 AD2d 456, 458 [2001]). Thus, the Family Court’s determination awarding custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Lichtenfeld v Lichtenfeld, 41 AD3d 849, 850 [2007]; Matter of Carl J.B. v Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736 [1992]). Mastro, A.P.J., Balkin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated November 1, 2010, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify an order of custody and visitation of the same court, dated April 12, 2007, by awarding him sole custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order dated November 1, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence established that the mother engaged in a course of conduct which intentionally interfered with the relationship between the child and the father. Such action is “so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as custodial parent” (Matter of Chebuske v Burnhard-Vogt, 284 AD2d 456, 458 [2001]). Thus, the Family Court’s determination awarding custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Lichtenfeld v Lichtenfeld, 41 AD3d 849, 850 [2007]; Matter of Carl J.B. v Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736 [1992]). Mastro, A.P.J., Balkin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 1124, 942 N.Y.S.2d 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-osik-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack