Storer v. Storer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Storer v. Storer

212 A.D.2d 689, 623 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1749

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 689 (Storer v. Storer) 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

Storer v. Storer, 212 A.D.2d 689, 623 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated December 2, 1992, which awarded the father unsupervised visitation with the parties’ minor child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contentions, the court did not [690]*690improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the father’s request for unsupervised visitation. Where, as in this case, there has been a full evidentiary hearing, the court’s findings are to be accorded great weight and will not be lightly set aside (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; D’Errico v D’Errico, 158 AD2d 503, 504). Upon a review of the record, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that unsupervised visitation would be in the best interests of the child (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, 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 mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated December 2, 1992, which awarded the father unsupervised visitation with the parties’ minor child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contentions, the court did not [690]*690improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the father’s request for unsupervised visitation. Where, as in this case, there has been a full evidentiary hearing, the court’s findings are to be accorded great weight and will not be lightly set aside (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; D’Errico v D’Errico, 158 AD2d 503, 504). Upon a review of the record, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that unsupervised visitation would be in the best interests of the child (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 689, 623 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/storer-v-storer-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack