Sneed v. Weekes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sneed v. Weekes

173 A.D.2d 474, 570 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7413

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

DecidedMay 6, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D.2d 474 (Sneed v. Weekes) 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

Sneed v. Weekes, 173 A.D.2d 474, 570 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 651, in which the petitioner father seeks custody of the parties’ minor son, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered [475]*475August 23, 1989, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded custody of the parties’ minor son to the respondent mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner father’s contention, the Family Court properly balanced all of the relevant factors in determining that it was in the best interests of the parties’ minor son to reside with his mother. Therefore, there is no reason for a new hearing on the custody petition. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 651, in which the petitioner father seeks custody of the parties’ minor son, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered [475]*475August 23, 1989, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded custody of the parties’ minor son to the respondent mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner father’s contention, the Family Court properly balanced all of the relevant factors in determining that it was in the best interests of the parties’ minor son to reside with his mother. Therefore, there is no reason for a new hearing on the custody petition. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 474, 570 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sneed-v-weekes-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack