Welch v. Lapp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Welch v. Lapp

139 A.D.2d 969

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

DecidedApril 8, 1988

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 969 (Welch v. Lapp) 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

Welch v. Lapp, 139 A.D.2d 969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Family Court erred in deciding the issue of the temporary custody of Jeremy and Jillene Lapp. Robin Lapp, the children’s mother, was awarded custody of the children in a divorce decree which also provided that all future matters relative to custody must be referred to Supreme Court. Thus, Family Court had no subject matter jurisdiction to determine custody (Family Ct Act § 115 [b]; § 447 [a]; § 467 [b]; Harrington v Harrington, 60 AD2d 982, 983). Family Court also erred in awarding Edward Welch, Jr., temporary custody of Jennifer Welch because the court failed to hold a full best interests hearing (Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770; Biagi v Biagi, 124 AD2d 770, 771; Bellinger v Bellinger, 109 AD2d 1104; Matter of Blake v Blake, 106 AD2d 916). (Appeal from order of Seneca County Family Court, Dugan, J. — temporary custody.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Family Court erred in deciding the issue of the temporary custody of Jeremy and Jillene Lapp. Robin Lapp, the children’s mother, was awarded custody of the children in a divorce decree which also provided that all future matters relative to custody must be referred to Supreme Court. Thus, Family Court had no subject matter jurisdiction to determine custody (Family Ct Act § 115 [b]; § 447 [a]; § 467 [b]; Harrington v Harrington, 60 AD2d 982, 983). Family Court also erred in awarding Edward Welch, Jr., temporary custody of Jennifer Welch because the court failed to hold a full best interests hearing (Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770; Biagi v Biagi, 124 AD2d 770, 771; Bellinger v Bellinger, 109 AD2d 1104; Matter of Blake v Blake, 106 AD2d 916). (Appeal from order of Seneca County Family Court, Dugan, J. — temporary custody.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-lapp-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack