Thayer v. Thayer

67 A.D.3d 1358, 888 N.Y.S.2d 693
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 1358 (Thayer v. Thayer) 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
Thayer v. Thayer, 67 A.D.3d 1358, 888 N.Y.S.2d 693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal from an order [1359]*1359of the Family Court, Oneida County (Randal B. Caldwell, J.), entered May 5, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted the parties joint custody of their four children, with primary physical residence with petitioner-respondent, Rodney J. Thayer.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent-petitioner mother appeals from an order granting the parties joint custody of their four children, with primary physical residence with petitioner-respondent father and visitation to the mother. Following a lengthy hearing, Family Court determined that the father would provide greater stability to the children and that it would be in their best interests to reside together with him. That determination, based in large part upon the court’s firsthand assessment of the character and credibility of the parties, is entitled to great deference (see Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]). We decline to disturb that determination, inasmuch as it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Krug v Krug, 55 AD3d 1373 [2008]).

The mother failed to preserve for our review her contentions with respect to the tape recordings made by the father (see generally Matter of Graham v Thering, 55 AD3d 1319 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 714 [2008]). In any event, the record establishes that the tape recordings did not influence the court’s determination, and thus any error with respect thereto is harmless (see generally id.; Matter ofMathieu v Grosser, 5 AD3d 1069 [2004]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Beavers v. Beavers
2025 NY Slip Op 03894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Kakwaya v. Twinamatsiko
2018 NY Slip Op 2103 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
CARDWELL, THOMAS v. MIGHELLS, JESSICA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Cardwell v. Mighells
122 A.D.3d 1293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
HOWELL, PATRICK A. v. LOVELL, FAATIMAH A.
103 A.D.3d 1229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
D'AMBRA, BRENDA L. v. D'AMBRA, RICHARD T.
94 A.D.3d 1532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
HELLES, TONYA v. HELLES, SR., LUKE
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Helles v. Helles
87 A.D.3d 1273 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
R., NICOLE J. v. R., JASON M.
81 A.D.3d 1450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Dubuque v. Bremiller
79 A.D.3d 1743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 A.D.3d 1358, 888 N.Y.S.2d 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thayer-v-thayer-nyappdiv-2009.