Sumiya v. Murtari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sumiya v. Murtari

275 A.D.2d 928, 714 N.Y.S.2d 254, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9726

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 29, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Order unanimously af[929]*929firmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent contends that Family Court erred in denying his cross petition seeking joint custody. We disagree. The court was “in the best position to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955, 956). The record supports the court’s determination that, based upon the parties’ acrimonious relationship and inability to communicate in a civil manner, a change from sole custody to joint custody was not warranted (see, Matter of Dube v Dube, 259 AD2d 1041; see also, Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 584, 589-590). The court also properly determined that petitioner’s relocation was in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741).

There is no merit to the contention of respondent that he was denied due process by the court’s denial of his request for a jury trial. Subject to exceptions not present here (see, Domestic Relations Law §§ 143, 173), matrimonial actions and proceedings incidental thereto are matters of equity for which “there is no right to a jury trial and thus [they] are not within the constitutional guarantees of a right to a jury trial” (Mandel v Mandel, 109 Misc 2d 1, 2, citing Reubens v Joel, 13 NY 488, and Powell v Waldron, 89 NY 328). We have examined respondent’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Bersani, J. — Custody.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously af[929]*929firmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent contends that Family Court erred in denying his cross petition seeking joint custody. We disagree. The court was “in the best position to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955, 956). The record supports the court’s determination that, based upon the parties’ acrimonious relationship and inability to communicate in a civil manner, a change from sole custody to joint custody was not warranted (see, Matter of Dube v Dube, 259 AD2d 1041; see also, Braiman v Braiman, 44 NY2d 584, 589-590). The court also properly determined that petitioner’s relocation was in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741).

There is no merit to the contention of respondent that he was denied due process by the court’s denial of his request for a jury trial. Subject to exceptions not present here (see, Domestic Relations Law §§ 143, 173), matrimonial actions and proceedings incidental thereto are matters of equity for which “there is no right to a jury trial and thus [they] are not within the constitutional guarantees of a right to a jury trial” (Mandel v Mandel, 109 Misc 2d 1, 2, citing Reubens v Joel, 13 NY 488, and Powell v Waldron, 89 NY 328). We have examined respondent’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Bersani, J. — Custody.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Sumiya v. Murtari, 275 A.D.2d 928, 714 N.Y.S.2d 254, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 928 (Sumiya v. Murtari) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related