People ex rel. De Pascalis v. De Pascalis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. De Pascalis v. De Pascalis

22 A.D.2d 932, 255 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2427

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 932 (People ex rel. De Pascalis v. De Pascalis) 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

People ex rel. De Pascalis v. De Pascalis, 22 A.D.2d 932, 255 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding by the petitioner mother to obtain the custody of a nine-year-old child, the defendant father appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered September 10, 1964, which sustained the writ and inter alia awarded custody of the child to the mother. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of: (1) holding a new hearing; and (2) making a determination de novo, on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing, of the issues raised by the pleadings*. No questions of fact have been considered. We are of the opinion that the court erred in excluding evidence offered by the father with respe,ct to the mother’s conduct and behavior with others, which would reflect on her fitness to have the custody of their nine-year-old child. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding by the petitioner mother to obtain the custody of a nine-year-old child, the defendant father appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered September 10, 1964, which sustained the writ and inter alia awarded custody of the child to the mother. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of: (1) holding a new hearing; and (2) making a determination de novo, on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing, of the issues raised by the pleadings*. No questions of fact have been considered. We are of the opinion that the court erred in excluding evidence offered by the father with respe,ct to the mother’s conduct and behavior with others, which would reflect on her fitness to have the custody of their nine-year-old child. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 932, 255 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-de-pascalis-v-de-pascalis-nyappdiv-1964.