Perell v. Krause

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perell v. Krause

306 A.D.2d 454, 761 N.Y.S.2d 840

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

DecidedJune 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 454 (Perell v. Krause) 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

Perell v. Krause, 306 A.D.2d 454, 761 N.Y.S.2d 840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered June 24, 2002, which granted that branch of the plaintiff mother’s motion which was, in effect, for a preliminary injunction directing him, inter alia, to stay away from the parties’ children pending further order of the court.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the branch of the motion which was, in effect, for a preliminary injunction directing the defendant, inter alia, to stay away from the parties’ children pending further order of the court is denied.

The plaintiff withdrew that branch of her motion which was for an order of protection and instead requested a preliminary injunction directing the defendant to stay away from the parties’ children pending further order of the court. The Supreme Court improperly granted that branch of the motion. In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court had no basis for determining that the defendant’s brief appearance at a school play in which his son was performing was harmful to the welfare and safety of the children or contrary to their best interests (see Bagner v Bagner, 207 AD2d 367, 369 [1994]; Trigilio v Trigilio, 124 AD2d 971 [1986]; Pica v Pica, 96 AD2d 836, 837 [1983]; see also CPLR 6312 [c]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered June 24, 2002, which granted that branch of the plaintiff mother’s motion which was, in effect, for a preliminary injunction directing him, inter alia, to stay away from the parties’ children pending further order of the court.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the branch of the motion which was, in effect, for a preliminary injunction directing the defendant, inter alia, to stay away from the parties’ children pending further order of the court is denied.

The plaintiff withdrew that branch of her motion which was for an order of protection and instead requested a preliminary injunction directing the defendant to stay away from the parties’ children pending further order of the court. The Supreme Court improperly granted that branch of the motion. In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court had no basis for determining that the defendant’s brief appearance at a school play in which his son was performing was harmful to the welfare and safety of the children or contrary to their best interests (see Bagner v Bagner, 207 AD2d 367, 369 [1994]; Trigilio v Trigilio, 124 AD2d 971 [1986]; Pica v Pica, 96 AD2d 836, 837 [1983]; see also CPLR 6312 [c]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 454, 761 N.Y.S.2d 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perell-v-krause-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack