Plummer v. Plummer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plummer v. Plummer

213 A.D.2d 1070, 625 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3924

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1070 (Plummer v. Plummer) 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

Plummer v. Plummer, 213 A.D.2d 1070, 625 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of respondent that Family Court erred in awarding custody of the parties’ son to petitioner. The determination of the trial court in a custody matter is to be accorded great deference because such determination "turns almost entirely on assessments of the credibility of the witnesses and particularly on the assessment of the character and temperament of the parent” (Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777; see, Matter of Pieri v Rider, 195 AD2d 1013; Matter of Kennedy v Kennedy, 156 AD2d 834, 835). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis and is supported by the evidence (see, Matter of Pieri v Rider, supra; Matter of Gill v Gill, 135 AD2d 1090, 1090-1091). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Schwerzmann, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention of respondent that Family Court erred in awarding custody of the parties’ son to petitioner. The determination of the trial court in a custody matter is to be accorded great deference because such determination "turns almost entirely on assessments of the credibility of the witnesses and particularly on the assessment of the character and temperament of the parent” (Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777; see, Matter of Pieri v Rider, 195 AD2d 1013; Matter of Kennedy v Kennedy, 156 AD2d 834, 835). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis and is supported by the evidence (see, Matter of Pieri v Rider, supra; Matter of Gill v Gill, 135 AD2d 1090, 1090-1091). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Schwerzmann, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1070, 625 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plummer-v-plummer-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack