Palmer v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palmer v. Palmer

235 A.D.2d 426, 652 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 198

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 426 (Palmer v. Palmer) 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

Palmer v. Palmer, 235 A.D.2d 426, 652 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered September 30, 1996, as granted the father’s petition for sole custody of the parties’ child and awarded her visitation rights.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by changing the primary custody of the child to the father. Based, inter alia, on the Family Court’s appraisal of the witnesses, the recommendation of the Law Guardian, and the testimony of the court-appointed psychiatrist, the record supports the conclusion that the child’s best interests will be served by the change (Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173; see also, Notley v Schmeid, 220 AD2d 509). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered September 30, 1996, as granted the father’s petition for sole custody of the parties’ child and awarded her visitation rights.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by changing the primary custody of the child to the father. Based, inter alia, on the Family Court’s appraisal of the witnesses, the recommendation of the Law Guardian, and the testimony of the court-appointed psychiatrist, the record supports the conclusion that the child’s best interests will be served by the change (Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172-173; see also, Notley v Schmeid, 220 AD2d 509). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 426, 652 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-palmer-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack