Sharma v. Sharma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sharma v. Sharma

35 A.D.3d 746, 826 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 746 (Sharma v. Sharma) 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

Sharma v. Sharma, 35 A.D.3d 746, 826 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an amended order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Foskey, J.), dated April 1, 2005, which, upon confirming a referee’s report (Phillips, Ct Atty [747]*747Ref), dated February 7, 2005, made after a hearing, inter alia, modified a stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties on March 12, 1999 by awarding the father sole custody of the parties’ child.

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, with costs.

There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court’s determination that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances since the parties entered into a stipulation concerning custody (see Family Ct Act § 652 [b]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 773-734 [2006]), and that a transfer of sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child to the father would be in the child’s best interests (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]). Accordingly, the Family Court correctly confirmed the referee’s report (cf. Shen v Shen, 21 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]), and properly modified the stipulation by awarding the father sole custody of the child (see Matter of Shehata v Shehata, supra at 774; Bobinski v Bobinski, 9 AD3d 441, 441-442 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an amended order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Foskey, J.), dated April 1, 2005, which, upon confirming a referee’s report (Phillips, Ct Atty [747]*747Ref), dated February 7, 2005, made after a hearing, inter alia, modified a stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties on March 12, 1999 by awarding the father sole custody of the parties’ child.

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, with costs.

There is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court’s determination that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances since the parties entered into a stipulation concerning custody (see Family Ct Act § 652 [b]; Matter of Shehata v Shehata, 31 AD3d 773, 773-734 [2006]), and that a transfer of sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child to the father would be in the child’s best interests (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]). Accordingly, the Family Court correctly confirmed the referee’s report (cf. Shen v Shen, 21 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]), and properly modified the stipulation by awarding the father sole custody of the child (see Matter of Shehata v Shehata, supra at 774; Bobinski v Bobinski, 9 AD3d 441, 441-442 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 746, 826 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharma-v-sharma-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack