Morton v. Morton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morton v. Morton

158 A.D.2d 458, 551 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1259

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 458 (Morton v. Morton) 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

Morton v. Morton, 158 A.D.2d 458, 551 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner father is seeking physical custody of his son, Jason, and his daughter, Yvonne. Physical custody of Yvonne was granted to the respondent mother pursuant to an order entered in 1985; that order did not, however, determine the custodial status of Jason. The Family Court dismissed the petition. We reverse.

The Family Court applied the incorrect standard in disposing of this petition. The court considered it determinative that there had been no significant change in circumstances since the entry of the earlier order. Instead, the court should have considered the totality of the circumstances, with the best interests of each child being the critical factor (see, Domestic [459]*459Relations Law §§ 70, 240; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 91, 94-95; Matter of Coyne v Coyne, 150 AD2d 573, 574).

Under the particular facts of this case, we believe that this error should be remedied by remitting the matter to the Family Court, Orange County, for the taking of any additional evidence the parties may wish to submit and a new determination. We note the absence of any brief on behalf of the children in question. We take this opportunity to call upon all attorneys assigned as Law Guardians to make certain that their clients are adequately represented on appeals of this type (see, Family Ct Act § 1120 [b], [c]; § 241, as amended by L 1988, ch 476). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

The petitioner father is seeking physical custody of his son, Jason, and his daughter, Yvonne. Physical custody of Yvonne was granted to the respondent mother pursuant to an order entered in 1985; that order did not, however, determine the custodial status of Jason. The Family Court dismissed the petition. We reverse.

The Family Court applied the incorrect standard in disposing of this petition. The court considered it determinative that there had been no significant change in circumstances since the entry of the earlier order. Instead, the court should have considered the totality of the circumstances, with the best interests of each child being the critical factor (see, Domestic [459]*459Relations Law §§ 70, 240; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 91, 94-95; Matter of Coyne v Coyne, 150 AD2d 573, 574).

Under the particular facts of this case, we believe that this error should be remedied by remitting the matter to the Family Court, Orange County, for the taking of any additional evidence the parties may wish to submit and a new determination. We note the absence of any brief on behalf of the children in question. We take this opportunity to call upon all attorneys assigned as Law Guardians to make certain that their clients are adequately represented on appeals of this type (see, Family Ct Act § 1120 [b], [c]; § 241, as amended by L 1988, ch 476). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 458, 551 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-morton-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack