Porges v. Porges

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porges v. Porges

61 A.D.2d 980, 402 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10596

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 A.D.2d 980 (Porges v. Porges) 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

Porges v. Porges, 61 A.D.2d 980, 402 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to obtain permanent custody of children, petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 27, 1977, as directed that custody of one of the children, Justine Porges, be awarded to respondent and permitted the respondent to have unsupervised visitation with the other child, Hillary Porges, whose custody was awarded to petitioner. Action remitted to the Special Term for the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Special Term failed to comply with the duty imposed upon it by statute to "state the facts it deems essential” to its decision (see CPLR 4213, subd [b]). This failure on the part of the court has made intelligent judicial review of its decision impossible (see Alleyne v Alleyne, 46 AD2d 785; Berlin v Berlin, 60 AD2d 861). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to obtain permanent custody of children, petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered September 27, 1977, as directed that custody of one of the children, Justine Porges, be awarded to respondent and permitted the respondent to have unsupervised visitation with the other child, Hillary Porges, whose custody was awarded to petitioner. Action remitted to the Special Term for the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Special Term failed to comply with the duty imposed upon it by statute to "state the facts it deems essential” to its decision (see CPLR 4213, subd [b]). This failure on the part of the court has made intelligent judicial review of its decision impossible (see Alleyne v Alleyne, 46 AD2d 785; Berlin v Berlin, 60 AD2d 861). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 980, 402 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porges-v-porges-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack