Walsh v. Badick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walsh v. Badick

23 A.D.3d 487, 803 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 487 (Walsh v. Badick) 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

Walsh v. Badick, 23 A.D.3d 487, 803 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered June 8, 2004, which, after a hearing, granted the father custody of the parties’ son.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Custody matters are within the discretion of the Family Court, and its findings should be accorded great deference on appeal since it was in the best position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]; Matter of Canazon v Canazon, 215 AD2d 652 [1995]; Klat v Klat, 176 AD2d 922, 923 [1991]). As there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court’s determination, it should not be disturbed (see Matter of Rory H. v Mary M., 13 AD3d 373 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, 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 an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered June 8, 2004, which, after a hearing, granted the father custody of the parties’ son.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Custody matters are within the discretion of the Family Court, and its findings should be accorded great deference on appeal since it was in the best position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the parties (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]; Matter of Canazon v Canazon, 215 AD2d 652 [1995]; Klat v Klat, 176 AD2d 922, 923 [1991]). As there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court’s determination, it should not be disturbed (see Matter of Rory H. v Mary M., 13 AD3d 373 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 487, 803 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-badick-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack