Povinelli v. Povinelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Povinelli v. Povinelli

249 A.D.2d 990, 671 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5156

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 990 (Povinelli v. Povinelli) 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

Povinelli v. Povinelli, 249 A.D.2d 990, 671 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff, who has sole custody of his three children, appeals from an order establishing defendant’s schedule of visitation following plaintiffs court-approved relocation to Syracuse. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in directing that defendant have visitation two out of every three weekends during the school year. Other aspects of the court-ordered visitation are not significantly different from the Law Guardian’s proposal, to which plaintiff agreed. The court properly fashioned “a visitation schedule that maximizes [defendant’s] opportunity to maintain a positive and nuturing relationship with the [children]” (Matter of Gillard v Gillard, 241 AD2d 966, 969). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Visitation.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, 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: Plaintiff, who has sole custody of his three children, appeals from an order establishing defendant’s schedule of visitation following plaintiffs court-approved relocation to Syracuse. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in directing that defendant have visitation two out of every three weekends during the school year. Other aspects of the court-ordered visitation are not significantly different from the Law Guardian’s proposal, to which plaintiff agreed. The court properly fashioned “a visitation schedule that maximizes [defendant’s] opportunity to maintain a positive and nuturing relationship with the [children]” (Matter of Gillard v Gillard, 241 AD2d 966, 969). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Grow, J. — Visitation.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 990, 671 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/povinelli-v-povinelli-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack