Seidenberg v. Seidenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seidenberg v. Seidenberg

19 A.D.2d 676, 241 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3483

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

DecidedJune 27, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 676 (Seidenberg v. Seidenberg) 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

Seidenberg v. Seidenberg, 19 A.D.2d 676, 241 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of a Special Term, Supreme Court, Montgomery County. Although the Special Term had continuing jurisdiction to modify the judgment of divorce in respect of custody and visitation of the child of the parties, some notice of either an application by the defendant or other adverse party or of an intention by the Special Term to change custody provision must be given to the plaintiff with an opportunity to meet that issue by adducing proof. (Alters v. Alters, 236 N. Y. 54; Hartenstein v. H'artenstein, 286 App. Div. 868; People-ex rel. Somniek v. Somniek, 1 A D 2d 1024.) We do not determine that the decision to allow defendant the right of visitation was not in the best interest of the child; we hold merely that plaintiff should have an opportunity to meet the issue. Order so far as appealed from reversed and the second and fifth decretal paragraphs stricken, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihv and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of a Special Term, Supreme Court, Montgomery County. Although the Special Term had continuing jurisdiction to modify the judgment of divorce in respect of custody and visitation of the child of the parties, some notice of either an application by the defendant or other adverse party or of an intention by the Special Term to change custody provision must be given to the plaintiff with an opportunity to meet that issue by adducing proof. (Alters v. Alters, 236 N. Y. 54; Hartenstein v. H'artenstein, 286 App. Div. 868; People-ex rel. Somniek v. Somniek, 1 A D 2d 1024.) We do not determine that the decision to allow defendant the right of visitation was not in the best interest of the child; we hold merely that plaintiff should have an opportunity to meet the issue. Order so far as appealed from reversed and the second and fifth decretal paragraphs stricken, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihv and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 676, 241 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seidenberg-v-seidenberg-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack