People ex rel. Hodes v. Hodes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Hodes v. Hodes

19 A.D.2d 800, 243 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3183

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 800 (People ex rel. Hodes v. Hodes) 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. Hodes v. Hodes, 19 A.D.2d 800, 243 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on August 14, 1963, granting custody of Jeffrey Scott Hodes, an infant, to relator-respondent, subject to the visitation rights of respondent-appellant set forth in said order, is unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of providing that only the Wednesday visits shall be restricted to relator-respondent’s home, and, as so modified, said order is affirmed, without costs. Special Term’s disposition of the main issue appears to us well considered, and we believe the modification above directed will help obviate foreseeable difficulties. We have considered relator-respondent’s suggestion regarding the visitation provisions, but are not persuaded that the order in this respect requires modification unless experience indicates that her apprehensions are well grounded. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on August 14, 1963, granting custody of Jeffrey Scott Hodes, an infant, to relator-respondent, subject to the visitation rights of respondent-appellant set forth in said order, is unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of providing that only the Wednesday visits shall be restricted to relator-respondent’s home, and, as so modified, said order is affirmed, without costs. Special Term’s disposition of the main issue appears to us well considered, and we believe the modification above directed will help obviate foreseeable difficulties. We have considered relator-respondent’s suggestion regarding the visitation provisions, but are not persuaded that the order in this respect requires modification unless experience indicates that her apprehensions are well grounded. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 800, 243 N.Y.S.2d 183, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-hodes-v-hodes-nyappdiv-1963.