Pendleton v. Pendleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pendleton v. Pendleton

285 A.D.2d 596, 728 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7610

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

DecidedJuly 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 596 (Pendleton v. Pendleton) 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

Pendleton v. Pendleton, 285 A.D.2d 596, 728 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), entered April 6, 2000, as, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for custody of the parties’ son.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The record establishes that there was a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court’s decision to grant the father custody of the parties’ son (see, Matter of Winslow v Lott, 272 AD2d 406; Santoro v Santoro, 224 AD2d 510). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Smith, 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, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), entered April 6, 2000, as, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for custody of the parties’ son.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The record establishes that there was a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court’s decision to grant the father custody of the parties’ son (see, Matter of Winslow v Lott, 272 AD2d 406; Santoro v Santoro, 224 AD2d 510). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 596, 728 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendleton-v-pendleton-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack