Susan B. v. Charles M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Susan B. v. Charles M.

67 A.D.3d 488, 889 N.Y.S.2d 143

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 488 (Susan B. v. Charles M.) 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

Susan B. v. Charles M., 67 A.D.3d 488, 889 N.Y.S.2d 143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), entered on or about April 24, 2008, which granted the mother’s petition to modify a prior order governing respondent father’s visitation of their child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The original order directed respondent not to consume alcohol while with the child. We defer to the more recent determination of the nisi prius court (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]), which was supported by the testimony of two police officers that respondent arrived at the designated location for exchange of the child in a state of intoxication. Such conduct constituted a change in circumstances warranting modification, [489]*489in the child’s best interests, to a more restrictive visitation schedule (see Matter of Kelley v VanDee, 61 AD3d 1281 [2009]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Renwick and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), entered on or about April 24, 2008, which granted the mother’s petition to modify a prior order governing respondent father’s visitation of their child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The original order directed respondent not to consume alcohol while with the child. We defer to the more recent determination of the nisi prius court (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]), which was supported by the testimony of two police officers that respondent arrived at the designated location for exchange of the child in a state of intoxication. Such conduct constituted a change in circumstances warranting modification, [489]*489in the child’s best interests, to a more restrictive visitation schedule (see Matter of Kelley v VanDee, 61 AD3d 1281 [2009]). Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Renwick and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 488, 889 N.Y.S.2d 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/susan-b-v-charles-m-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack