Tart v. De Kroyft

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tart v. De Kroyft

39 A.D.2d 762, 332 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4544

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

DecidedMay 22, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 762 (Tart v. De Kroyft) 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

Tart v. De Kroyft, 39 A.D.2d 762, 332 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding for custody of relator’s minor child, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 13, 1971, which dismissed the petition and adjudged that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the home of respondent, the maternal grandfather. Judgment affirmed, without costs. It is the view of the court that the parties should endeavor to increase the visitation opportunities made available to petitioner and compatible with the best interests of the child. In the event that no agreement can be reached, a further application limited to the fixation of visitation rights should be made to Special Term for that purpose. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Latham, Shapiro and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding for custody of relator’s minor child, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 13, 1971, which dismissed the petition and adjudged that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the home of respondent, the maternal grandfather. Judgment affirmed, without costs. It is the view of the court that the parties should endeavor to increase the visitation opportunities made available to petitioner and compatible with the best interests of the child. In the event that no agreement can be reached, a further application limited to the fixation of visitation rights should be made to Special Term for that purpose. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuseello, Latham, Shapiro and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 762, 332 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tart-v-de-kroyft-nyappdiv-1972.