Trinh Quoc Tran v. Tau Minh Tran

277 A.D.2d 49, 716 N.Y.S.2d 5, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11253
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 49 (Trinh Quoc Tran v. Tau Minh Tran) 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
Trinh Quoc Tran v. Tau Minh Tran, 277 A.D.2d 49, 716 N.Y.S.2d 5, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered December 30, 1999, which, in an action for divorce, granted plaintiffs motion for an order modifying the custody and visitation agreement dated June 8, 1999 to the extent of awarding plaintiff authority as to any decision with respect to whether the child should continue in therapy, granting the child a brief hiatus before starting with a new therapist, and requiring defendant to pay the fees of the law guardian for the instant application, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having determined that defendant violated the provision of the custody and visitation agreement with respect to the child’s therapy by the manner in which defendant terminated the child’s therapy approximately two weeks after voluntarily signing the agreement, the court properly exercised its discretion in modifying the agreement to award plaintiff the authority as to any decision with respect to whether the child should continue in therapy, in accordance with the recommendation of the law guardian (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89). Although defendant currently has sole custody of the child pursuant to the agreement, the court’s decision to vest decision-making authority in the father with respect to the child’s therapy is justified, in light of defendant’s clear preference that the child not be in therapy at all; her demonstrated inability to work with a therapist unless the therapist supports her preference; her lack of reliability with respect to abiding by the terms [50]*50of the agreement; and the probability that she would interfere with the child’s future therapy (see, Matter of Frize v Frize, 266 AD2d 753). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

Cohen v. Cohen
2019 NY Slip Op 8391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain
24 A.D.3d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Ferguson v. Ferguson
2003 NY Slip Op 23922 (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2003)
Ferguson v. Ferguson
2 Misc. 3d 277 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 49, 716 N.Y.S.2d 5, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trinh-quoc-tran-v-tau-minh-tran-nyappdiv-2000.