Tyrone G. v. Lucretia S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tyrone G. v. Lucretia S.

4 A.D.3d 205, 771 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1783

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 205 (Tyrone G. v. Lucretia 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

Tyrone G. v. Lucretia S., 4 A.D.3d 205, 771 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about April 24, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application for sole custody of the parties’ child, and granted sole custody to respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly accorded substantial weight to evidence showing that petitioner’s interference with respondent’s relationship with the child was “persistent” and “insidious,” included unfounded allegations of child abuse, and caused the [206]*206child emotional harm (see Matter of Mendez v Hance, 1 AD3d 265 [2003]; Matter of Gago v Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565, 566 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 706 [1995]). Also given proper consideration were the recommendation of the Law Guardian and the reports of two psychologists concluding that respondent should have custody (see Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1995]). Petitioner was not denied due process when Family Court refused to assign him new counsel after permitting his assigned counsel to withdraw based on his refusal to cooperate with her without good cause, granted petitioner an adjournment to retain his own counsel, and thereafter permitted petitioner to proceed pro se when he appeared in court without his own counsel (see Matter of Biskupski v McClellan, 278 AD2d 912, 912 [2000]; Matter of Child Welfare Admin. v Jennifer A., 218 AD2d 694 [1995]). We have considered and rejected petitioner’s other arguments. Concur—Nardelli, J.P, Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about April 24, 1998, which denied petitioner’s application for sole custody of the parties’ child, and granted sole custody to respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly accorded substantial weight to evidence showing that petitioner’s interference with respondent’s relationship with the child was “persistent” and “insidious,” included unfounded allegations of child abuse, and caused the [206]*206child emotional harm (see Matter of Mendez v Hance, 1 AD3d 265 [2003]; Matter of Gago v Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565, 566 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 706 [1995]). Also given proper consideration were the recommendation of the Law Guardian and the reports of two psychologists concluding that respondent should have custody (see Young v Young, 212 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1995]). Petitioner was not denied due process when Family Court refused to assign him new counsel after permitting his assigned counsel to withdraw based on his refusal to cooperate with her without good cause, granted petitioner an adjournment to retain his own counsel, and thereafter permitted petitioner to proceed pro se when he appeared in court without his own counsel (see Matter of Biskupski v McClellan, 278 AD2d 912, 912 [2000]; Matter of Child Welfare Admin. v Jennifer A., 218 AD2d 694 [1995]). We have considered and rejected petitioner’s other arguments. Concur—Nardelli, J.P, Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 205, 771 N.Y.S.2d 645, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyrone-g-v-lucretia-s-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack