Torres v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. Holmes

306 A.D.2d 415, 761 N.Y.S.2d 489

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

DecidedJune 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 415 (Torres v. Holmes) 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

Torres v. Holmes, 306 A.D.2d 415, 761 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered January 14, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied her petition for custody of the parties’ two children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court’s primary concern in any child custody dispute is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a change in custody is in the best interests of the children (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Chebuske v Burnhard-Vogt, 284 AD2d 456, 457 [2001]; Matter of McCoy v [416]*416McCoy, 277 AD2d 384, 385 [2000]). Since the hearing court is in the most advantageous position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra, 294 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]; Santoro v Santoro, 224 AD2d 510, 511 [1996]). Here, the Family Court’s determination denying the mother’s petition for custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed. Altman, J.P., Florio, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered January 14, 2002, as, after a hearing, denied her petition for custody of the parties’ two children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The court’s primary concern in any child custody dispute is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a change in custody is in the best interests of the children (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Chebuske v Burnhard-Vogt, 284 AD2d 456, 457 [2001]; Matter of McCoy v [416]*416McCoy, 277 AD2d 384, 385 [2000]). Since the hearing court is in the most advantageous position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra, 294 AD2d 565, 566 [2002]; Santoro v Santoro, 224 AD2d 510, 511 [1996]). Here, the Family Court’s determination denying the mother’s petition for custody has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed. Altman, J.P., Florio, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 415, 761 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-holmes-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack