Wells v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wells v. Smith

13 A.D.3d 381, 785 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14861

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 381 (Wells v. Smith) 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

Wells v. Smith, 13 A.D.3d 381, 785 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated June 9, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied her petition to change custody of the parties’ child from the father to her.

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

[382]*382In determining whether a custody agreement should be modified, the paramount issue before the court is whether the totality of the circumstances warrants modification in the best interests of the child (see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96 [1982]; Matter of Pignetti v Maust, 270 AD2d 274 [2000]). Here, it is clear that the Family Court considered the totality of the circumstances in determining that the best interests of the parties’ child would be served by continuing the status quo (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Donnelly v Donnelly, 273 AD2d 233 [2000]). Accordingly, the Family Court’s determination will not be disturbed. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein 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, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated June 9, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied her petition to change custody of the parties’ child from the father to her.

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

[382]*382In determining whether a custody agreement should be modified, the paramount issue before the court is whether the totality of the circumstances warrants modification in the best interests of the child (see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96 [1982]; Matter of Pignetti v Maust, 270 AD2d 274 [2000]). Here, it is clear that the Family Court considered the totality of the circumstances in determining that the best interests of the parties’ child would be served by continuing the status quo (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Donnelly v Donnelly, 273 AD2d 233 [2000]). Accordingly, the Family Court’s determination will not be disturbed. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 381, 785 N.Y.S.2d 349, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-smith-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack