Valure v. Valure

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valure v. Valure

293 A.D.2d 548, 739 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3528

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

DecidedApril 8, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 548 (Valure v. Valure) 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

Valure v. Valure, 293 A.D.2d 548, 739 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), dated September 6, 2000, as, after a hearing, transferred custody of the parties’ youngest son to the father.

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

It is axiomatic that custody determinations are to be made upon consideration of all relevant circumstances to reach the disposition that promotes the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171; Matter of Sandra C. v Christian D., 244 AD2d 551; cf. Barbato v Barbato, 264 AD2d 792). The analysis of the various factors to be taken into account in deciding a custody question is best made by the hearing court, which is in the most advantageous position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties (see Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946; Barbato v Barbato, supra). Its determination will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra; Barbato v Barbato, supra).

The record supports the Family Court’s conclusion that a change in custody would serve the best interests of the child (cf. Mandelberg v Mandelberg, 260 AD2d 553). Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Adams, 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 from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), dated September 6, 2000, as, after a hearing, transferred custody of the parties’ youngest son to the father.

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

It is axiomatic that custody determinations are to be made upon consideration of all relevant circumstances to reach the disposition that promotes the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171; Matter of Sandra C. v Christian D., 244 AD2d 551; cf. Barbato v Barbato, 264 AD2d 792). The analysis of the various factors to be taken into account in deciding a custody question is best made by the hearing court, which is in the most advantageous position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties (see Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946; Barbato v Barbato, supra). Its determination will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, supra; Barbato v Barbato, supra).

The record supports the Family Court’s conclusion that a change in custody would serve the best interests of the child (cf. Mandelberg v Mandelberg, 260 AD2d 553). Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 548, 739 N.Y.S.2d 843, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valure-v-valure-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack