Peters v. Peters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peters v. Peters

78 A.D.2d 996, 433 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13770

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 996 (Peters v. Peters) 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

Peters v. Peters, 78 A.D.2d 996, 433 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The court improperly placed upon petitioner the burden of proving why a valid out-of-State custody decree should be enforced. Under section 75-n of article 5-A of the Domestic Relations Law, New York courts are required to enforce custody decrees of another State. Although petitioner had the burden of proving that a valid out-of-State decree existed, she did not have the burden of proving that it was in the best interest of the child to enforce the decree. The best interest of the child involved must govern in the adjudication of custody (Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242). However, the court did correctly consider the best interest of the child, and its incorrect statements regarding burden of proof were harmless error. (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court — custody.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The court improperly placed upon petitioner the burden of proving why a valid out-of-State custody decree should be enforced. Under section 75-n of article 5-A of the Domestic Relations Law, New York courts are required to enforce custody decrees of another State. Although petitioner had the burden of proving that a valid out-of-State decree existed, she did not have the burden of proving that it was in the best interest of the child to enforce the decree. The best interest of the child involved must govern in the adjudication of custody (Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242). However, the court did correctly consider the best interest of the child, and its incorrect statements regarding burden of proof were harmless error. (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court — custody.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 996, 433 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-peters-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack