Samide v. Samide

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Samide v. Samide

274 A.D.2d 426, 711 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7716

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

DecidedJuly 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D.2d 426 (Samide v. Samide) 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

Samide v. Samide, 274 A.D.2d 426, 711 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered May 10, 1999, as awarded custody of the parties’ two children to the defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the children to award custody to the defendant has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Dodaro v Dodaro, 269 AD2d 420; Fanelli v Fanelli, 215 AD2d 718; Matter of Canazon v Canazon, 215 AD2d 652; Giatras v Giatras, 202 AD2d 389, 390). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered May 10, 1999, as awarded custody of the parties’ two children to the defendant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court’s determination that it was in the best interests of the children to award custody to the defendant has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Dodaro v Dodaro, 269 AD2d 420; Fanelli v Fanelli, 215 AD2d 718; Matter of Canazon v Canazon, 215 AD2d 652; Giatras v Giatras, 202 AD2d 389, 390). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 426, 711 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samide-v-samide-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack