Pape v. Pape

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pape v. Pape

233 A.D.2d 946, 649 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13516

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 946 (Pape v. Pape) 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

Pape v. Pape, 233 A.D.2d 946, 649 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of respondent that Family Court abused its discretion by denying his cross petition seeking custody of the parties’ two children. Custody determinations are governed by the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Roulo v Roulo, 201 AD2d 937). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the best interests of the children are served by the court’s disposition, and there is no basis to disturb it (see, Matter of Castro v Santiago, 176 AD2d 520). (Appeal from Order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of respondent that Family Court abused its discretion by denying his cross petition seeking custody of the parties’ two children. Custody determinations are governed by the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Roulo v Roulo, 201 AD2d 937). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the best interests of the children are served by the court’s disposition, and there is no basis to disturb it (see, Matter of Castro v Santiago, 176 AD2d 520). (Appeal from Order of Genesee County Family Court, Graney, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 946, 649 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pape-v-pape-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack