Rokitka v. Bauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rokitka v. Bauer

219 A.D.2d 834, 632 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10885

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 834 (Rokitka v. Bauer) 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

Rokitka v. Bauer, 219 A.D.2d 834, 632 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the child to reside primarily with petitioner has a substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B., 80 AD2d 72, 76). Because Family Court is "in the most advantageous position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties” (DeJesus v [835]*835DeJesus, 208 AD2d 587, 588; see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167), its findings are entitled to the greatest respect (see, Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777). Petitioner concedes that the court’s order does not conform to the decision, which changed the primary residence of the child but did not alter the joint custody arrangement. We modify the order on appeal, therefore, to conform to the decision (see, CPLR 5019 [a]; Matter of Calm Lake Dev. v Town Bd., 213 AD2d 979) by providing in the first decretal paragraph that joint custody continue and by providing that petitioner is the residential parent. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Dillon, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the child to reside primarily with petitioner has a substantial basis in the record (see, Matter of Gloria S. v Richard B., 80 AD2d 72, 76). Because Family Court is "in the most advantageous position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties” (DeJesus v [835]*835DeJesus, 208 AD2d 587, 588; see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167), its findings are entitled to the greatest respect (see, Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776, 777). Petitioner concedes that the court’s order does not conform to the decision, which changed the primary residence of the child but did not alter the joint custody arrangement. We modify the order on appeal, therefore, to conform to the decision (see, CPLR 5019 [a]; Matter of Calm Lake Dev. v Town Bd., 213 AD2d 979) by providing in the first decretal paragraph that joint custody continue and by providing that petitioner is the residential parent. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Dillon, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 834, 632 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rokitka-v-bauer-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack