Wodka v. Wodka

168 A.D.2d 1000, 565 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16574
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 21, 1990·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: It was an abuse of discretion for the court to award permanent custody of the parties’ child to the father without conducting a factual hearing to determine the fundamental issue of the best interests of the child (Ideman v Ideman, 168 AD2d 1001 [decided herewith]; Mosesku v Mosesku, 108 AD2d 795; Matter of Blake v Blake, 106 AD2d 916). We find no merit to the father’s contention that the court’s summary resolution of the custody issue was proper because the mother willfully refused to obey a court order to return to New York following her relocation with the child to Oregon. [1001] Although not necessary to our determination, we note that the court was without authority to compel the mother to return to New York and that she complied with that part of the order that directed the return of the child. In any event, defiance of a court order is but one factor to be considered when determining the relative fitness of the parties and what custody arrangement is in the child’s best interest (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94; Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242, 251). Accordingly, we reverse the order and remit the matter for a custody hearing to be conducted by a different Judge (see, Matter of Blake v Blake, supra, at 916-917). Physical custody is to be continued with the father pending the determination of permanent custody (see, Mosesku v Mosesku, supra). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, O’Donnell, J. — custody.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Wodka v. Wodka, 168 A.D.2d 1000, 565 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

168 A.D.2d 1000 (Wodka v. Wodka) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

HOWELL, PATRICK A. v. LOVELL, FAATIMAH A.
103 A.D.3d 1229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
TARRANT, DANIEL v. OSTROWSKI, SHANNON
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Tarrant v. Ostrowski
96 A.D.3d 1580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
King v. King
251 A.D.2d 1028 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Klang v. Klang
235 A.D.2d 476 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Barnes v. Barnes
234 A.D.2d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Aylesworth v. Aylesworth
207 A.D.2d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Goodwin v. Goodwin
193 A.D.2d 1138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Radford v. Propper
190 A.D.2d 93 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Wiles v. Wiles
171 A.D.2d 398 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Wodka v. Wodka
168 A.D.2d 1001 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)