Tammy G. v. Kevin G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tammy G. v. Kevin G.

217 A.D.2d 1008, 631 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8456

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

DecidedJuly 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 1008 (Tammy G. v. Kevin G.) 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

Tammy G. v. Kevin G., 217 A.D.2d 1008, 631 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We decline to disturb Family Court’s award of custody of the parties’ son to respondent, with liberal visitation to petitioner. The court acknowledged that neither party is unfit and weighed the appropriate factors bearing on the best interests of the child (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Matter of Blake v Blake, 106 AD2d 916). There is no merit to the contention that the award of custody to respondent is against public policy. The court properly considered the existence of respondent’s second child and petitioner’s prior alcohol abuse as factors affecting the best interests of the child. "The weighing of the various factors bearing on the best interests of the children requires an evaluation of the character of the parties and can be best made by the trial court, which is the best judge of that subjective factor” (Matter of Scott v Scott, 193 AD2d 1103, 1104, citing Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Schwerzmann, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We decline to disturb Family Court’s award of custody of the parties’ son to respondent, with liberal visitation to petitioner. The court acknowledged that neither party is unfit and weighed the appropriate factors bearing on the best interests of the child (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Matter of Blake v Blake, 106 AD2d 916). There is no merit to the contention that the award of custody to respondent is against public policy. The court properly considered the existence of respondent’s second child and petitioner’s prior alcohol abuse as factors affecting the best interests of the child. "The weighing of the various factors bearing on the best interests of the children requires an evaluation of the character of the parties and can be best made by the trial court, which is the best judge of that subjective factor” (Matter of Scott v Scott, 193 AD2d 1103, 1104, citing Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Schwerzmann, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 1008, 631 N.Y.S.2d 273, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tammy-g-v-kevin-g-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack