People ex rel. Jackson v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Jackson v. Mitchell

22 A.D.2d 903, 255 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2580

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 903 (People ex rel. Jackson v. Mitchell) 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. Jackson v. Mitchell, 22 A.D.2d 903, 255 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2580 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, initiated by a father for the purpose of defining his visitation rights to his infant -child in the mother’s custody pursuant to a separation agreement, and to permit the father, for two weeks each Summer to take the child to California, the mother appeals from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 21, 1963 without a- hearing but upon a purported stipulation, which inter alia sustained the writ and granted permission to the father, during his annual two-week visitation period, to take the child anywhere outside of the State of Hew York, provided the child is returned to the mother at the conclusion of. the said two-week visitation [904]*904period. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of: (1) holding a hearing at which oral testimony shall be taken with respect to all the issues of fact raised by the petition and return; and (2) making a determinátion de novo of all the issues on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. Ho questions of fact have been considered. When controversial issues arise in a proceeding to determine visitation rights, such issues should not be decided without a hearing, especially if the decision may affect the welfare of the child involved. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, ICleinfeld, Brennan 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, initiated by a father for the purpose of defining his visitation rights to his infant -child in the mother’s custody pursuant to a separation agreement, and to permit the father, for two weeks each Summer to take the child to California, the mother appeals from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 21, 1963 without a- hearing but upon a purported stipulation, which inter alia sustained the writ and granted permission to the father, during his annual two-week visitation period, to take the child anywhere outside of the State of Hew York, provided the child is returned to the mother at the conclusion of. the said two-week visitation [904]*904period. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of: (1) holding a hearing at which oral testimony shall be taken with respect to all the issues of fact raised by the petition and return; and (2) making a determinátion de novo of all the issues on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. Ho questions of fact have been considered. When controversial issues arise in a proceeding to determine visitation rights, such issues should not be decided without a hearing, especially if the decision may affect the welfare of the child involved. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, ICleinfeld, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 903, 255 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-jackson-v-mitchell-nyappdiv-1964.