Richman v. Richman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richman v. Richman

104 A.D.2d 934, 480 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20379

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 934 (Richman v. Richman) 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

Richman v. Richman, 104 A.D.2d 934, 480 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated March 17, 1984, as awarded custody of the parties’ two children to the plaintiff husband pendente lite.

Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with costs, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an immediate hearing and new determination.

Plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for a divorce, alleging cruel and inhuman treatment on the part of defendant. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant had left him for another man on September 19, 1983. In her answer, defendant admitted cohabitation with the other man. She also counterclaimed for divorce. The record indicates that approximately two [935]*935weeks after defendant’s departure from the marital residence, the two minor children of the parties moved in with defendant. There is no indication in the record that plaintiff objected at that time to the transfer of custody.

Defendant moved for various pendente lite relief including an award of temporary legal custody of the children. Plaintiff cross-moved in response for custody of the children. Special Term, without holding a hearing, awarded temporary custody to plaintiff. In its memorandum decision, the court failed to set forth its reasons for transferring custody.

Generally speaking, priority in a custody dispute should be given to the first parent who was awarded custody in litigation or by voluntary agreement (see Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242). Of course, the court’s primary concern should always be the best interests of the child (see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270). A subsequent change in custody should, at the very least, follow a full hearing in which all relevant aspects of the matter are considered and weighed by the court (see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768; Matter of Mitchell v Mitchell, 67 AD2d 924). Here, it appears that plaintiff initially agreed that the children should live with defendant and the children were living with the defendant. Special Term should not have thereafter transferred custody without a hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the order, insofar as appealed from, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an immediate hearing and new determination. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), dated March 17, 1984, as awarded custody of the parties’ two children to the plaintiff husband pendente lite.

Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, with costs, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an immediate hearing and new determination.

Plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for a divorce, alleging cruel and inhuman treatment on the part of defendant. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant had left him for another man on September 19, 1983. In her answer, defendant admitted cohabitation with the other man. She also counterclaimed for divorce. The record indicates that approximately two [935]*935weeks after defendant’s departure from the marital residence, the two minor children of the parties moved in with defendant. There is no indication in the record that plaintiff objected at that time to the transfer of custody.

Defendant moved for various pendente lite relief including an award of temporary legal custody of the children. Plaintiff cross-moved in response for custody of the children. Special Term, without holding a hearing, awarded temporary custody to plaintiff. In its memorandum decision, the court failed to set forth its reasons for transferring custody.

Generally speaking, priority in a custody dispute should be given to the first parent who was awarded custody in litigation or by voluntary agreement (see Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242). Of course, the court’s primary concern should always be the best interests of the child (see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270). A subsequent change in custody should, at the very least, follow a full hearing in which all relevant aspects of the matter are considered and weighed by the court (see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768; Matter of Mitchell v Mitchell, 67 AD2d 924). Here, it appears that plaintiff initially agreed that the children should live with defendant and the children were living with the defendant. Special Term should not have thereafter transferred custody without a hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the order, insofar as appealed from, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for an immediate hearing and new determination. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 934, 480 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richman-v-richman-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack