Zeman v. Knibbs
86 A.D.3d 578, 926 N.Y.2d 902
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
Contrary to the father’s contention, there is no evidence that the Supreme Court was biased against him and deprived him of a fair hearing (see Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 44 [2010]; Matter of Jeannie B. v Roger D., 33 AD3d 994 [2006]). Moreover, the record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the mother did not violate the prior order of visitation (see Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d 774 [2009]; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 54 AD3d 347 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Zeman v. Knibbs, 86 A.D.3d 578, 926 N.Y.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
86 A.D.3d 578 (Zeman v. Knibbs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Stewart v. Moseley
102 A.D.3d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Solovay v. Solovay
94 A.D.3d 898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang
89 A.D.3d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)