Thomas S. v. Letisha S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas S. v. Letisha S.

74 A.D.3d 695, 902 N.Y.S.2d 823

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

DecidedJune 29, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.3d 695 (Thomas S. v. Letisha S.) 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

Thomas S. v. Letisha S., 74 A.D.3d 695, 902 N.Y.S.2d 823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Marilyn L. Zarrello, Ref.), entered on or about October 18, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted a final order of custody to petitioner father, with visitation to respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no basis for disturbing the court’s finding that while both parties were fit to act as custodial parents on most counts, the children would benefit from returning to petitioner, who had provided them a loving, stable and nurturing environment (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]). The record supports the findings that he demonstrated an ability to recognize the children’s needs, while respondent failed to consider the impact of refusing to return the children to their father in 2005, lacked an adequate parenting plan, and had an inconsistent work schedule that exacerbated the children’s emotional and academic problems. The court properly considered the benefits of keeping the siblings united and the lack of any stated preferences of the children at the time of the order. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Marilyn L. Zarrello, Ref.), entered on or about October 18, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted a final order of custody to petitioner father, with visitation to respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no basis for disturbing the court’s finding that while both parties were fit to act as custodial parents on most counts, the children would benefit from returning to petitioner, who had provided them a loving, stable and nurturing environment (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]). The record supports the findings that he demonstrated an ability to recognize the children’s needs, while respondent failed to consider the impact of refusing to return the children to their father in 2005, lacked an adequate parenting plan, and had an inconsistent work schedule that exacerbated the children’s emotional and academic problems. The court properly considered the benefits of keeping the siblings united and the lack of any stated preferences of the children at the time of the order. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 695, 902 N.Y.S.2d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-s-v-letisha-s-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack