Przelski v. Mower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Przelski v. Mower

242 A.D.2d 923, 665 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10500

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 923 (Przelski v. Mower) 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

Przelski v. Mower, 242 A.D.2d 923, 665 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order of Family Court awarding custody of the parties’ two children to respondent mother with visitation rights to petitioner. Petitioner contends that the determination is erroneous because the court placed too much emphasis upon the stability factor, failed to consider the quality of the respective home environments, failed to consider respondent’s alleged mental health problems, and erred in concluding that the children’s best interests would be served by placing primary custody with respondent. We disagree.

The record establishes that petitioner is controlling and emotionally abusive, and shows comparatively poor judgment. The record also establishes that respondent is more nurturing and better able to provide for the children’s safety, stability, and educational, financial, moral, and emotional well-being (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-174; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210). (Appeal from Order of Herkimer County Family Court, LaRaia, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order of Family Court awarding custody of the parties’ two children to respondent mother with visitation rights to petitioner. Petitioner contends that the determination is erroneous because the court placed too much emphasis upon the stability factor, failed to consider the quality of the respective home environments, failed to consider respondent’s alleged mental health problems, and erred in concluding that the children’s best interests would be served by placing primary custody with respondent. We disagree.

The record establishes that petitioner is controlling and emotionally abusive, and shows comparatively poor judgment. The record also establishes that respondent is more nurturing and better able to provide for the children’s safety, stability, and educational, financial, moral, and emotional well-being (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-174; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 210). (Appeal from Order of Herkimer County Family Court, LaRaia, J.—Custody.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 923, 665 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/przelski-v-mower-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack