Taylor v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Rivera

261 A.D.2d 947, 689 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5052

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

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 947 (Taylor v. Rivera) 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

Taylor v. Rivera, 261 A.D.2d 947, 689 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously [948]*948affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The evidence adduced at the custody hearing supports Family Court’s conclusion that it is in the best interests of the child for custody to be transferred from respondent to petitioner. Although the change disrupts a custodial arrangement of seven years, “the disruption of change is not necessarily conclusive” (Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947). The court, which had the advantage of observing and hearing the witnesses (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., supra, at 947), concluded that countervailing circumstances existed to warrant a change in the long-standing custody arrangement (cf., Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 213). The court determined that petitioner was in a better position to provide for the child (see, Fox v Fox, supra, at 210). The court also expressed legitimate concern, as did the Law Guardian, over respondent’s failure to comply with prior orders of Family Court and to cooperate with the court-ordered home study performed by the probation department. Finally, the child expressed to the Law Guardian her desire to live with petitioner. Although the desire of a 10-year-old child is not . determinative, it is a factor to be considered (see, Fox v Fox, supra, at 210). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Custody.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously [948]*948affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The evidence adduced at the custody hearing supports Family Court’s conclusion that it is in the best interests of the child for custody to be transferred from respondent to petitioner. Although the change disrupts a custodial arrangement of seven years, “the disruption of change is not necessarily conclusive” (Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947). The court, which had the advantage of observing and hearing the witnesses (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., supra, at 947), concluded that countervailing circumstances existed to warrant a change in the long-standing custody arrangement (cf., Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 213). The court determined that petitioner was in a better position to provide for the child (see, Fox v Fox, supra, at 210). The court also expressed legitimate concern, as did the Law Guardian, over respondent’s failure to comply with prior orders of Family Court and to cooperate with the court-ordered home study performed by the probation department. Finally, the child expressed to the Law Guardian her desire to live with petitioner. Although the desire of a 10-year-old child is not . determinative, it is a factor to be considered (see, Fox v Fox, supra, at 210). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Custody.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 947, 689 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-rivera-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack