Roche v. Roche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roche v. Roche

86 A.D.2d 778, 449 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15359

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 778 (Roche v. Roche) 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

Roche v. Roche, 86 A.D.2d 778, 449 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Our affirmance of Family Court should not be construed as approval of joint custody of the child in both parents with physical custody of the child to the mother for six months and the father for six months without reciprocal visitation rights. Inasmuch as this temporary order pertains to a four- and one-half-year-old child of separated parents and is limited in duration until the child enters school and subject to change by Family Court which has retained jurisdiction and control, we see no reason to disburb the court’s determination. (Appeal from order of [779]*779Cayuga County Family Court, Corning, J. — custody.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Our affirmance of Family Court should not be construed as approval of joint custody of the child in both parents with physical custody of the child to the mother for six months and the father for six months without reciprocal visitation rights. Inasmuch as this temporary order pertains to a four- and one-half-year-old child of separated parents and is limited in duration until the child enters school and subject to change by Family Court which has retained jurisdiction and control, we see no reason to disburb the court’s determination. (Appeal from order of [779]*779Cayuga County Family Court, Corning, J. — custody.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 778, 449 N.Y.S.2d 937, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roche-v-roche-nyappdiv-1982.