Whitman v. Whitman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whitman v. Whitman

8 A.D.3d 673, 778 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9104

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 673 (Whitman v. Whitman) 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

Whitman v. Whitman, 8 A.D.3d 673, 778 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Araujo, J.H.O.), dated June 30, 2003, as, after a hearing, denied her petition for a change of residential custody.

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

Contrary to the mother’s contention, she was not denied the effective assistance of counsel with respect to her petition for a change of residential custody (see Matter of Bates v Bates, 290 AD2d 732 [2002]; Matter of Baker v Baker, 283 AD2d 730 [2001]; see Matter of Saren v Palma, 263 AD2d 544 [1999]; Matter of Schimmel v Schimmel, 262 AD2d 990 [1999]). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Skelos, 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, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Araujo, J.H.O.), dated June 30, 2003, as, after a hearing, denied her petition for a change of residential custody.

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

Contrary to the mother’s contention, she was not denied the effective assistance of counsel with respect to her petition for a change of residential custody (see Matter of Bates v Bates, 290 AD2d 732 [2002]; Matter of Baker v Baker, 283 AD2d 730 [2001]; see Matter of Saren v Palma, 263 AD2d 544 [1999]; Matter of Schimmel v Schimmel, 262 AD2d 990 [1999]). Altman, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 673, 778 N.Y.S.2d 888, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitman-v-whitman-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack