Angel M.S. v. Thomas J.S.
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Rawleigh v. Gallt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- BIAGINI, JAMIE LYNN v. PARENT, JR., WALTER J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Biagini v. Parent (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Biagini v. Parent (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- SMITH, RICARDO L. v. INCE, TEEOHMBAYE S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Goossen v. Goossen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Bielli v. Bielli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Nagi T. v. Magdia T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Krug v. Krug (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Martin J.R. v. Kimberli A.K. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Livingston County (Ronald A. Cicoria, J.), entered December 8, 2005 in a proceed
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order granting the parties joint custody of their two children, with primary physical placement with petitioner and visitation to respondent. Family Court determined following a lengthy hearing that both parties have strong and loving bonds with the children, although respondent has a history of anger management problems and petitioner has on occasion failed to recognize safety hazards in her home. The court determined that, because petitioner has been the children’s primary caregiver, she is better suited to nurture the children and to provide for their emotional support (see generally Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211-212 [1992]), and that she is more inclined to accommodate a placement schedule that permits the children maximum access to respondent. The court’s determinations with respect to the credibility of the witnesses are entitled to great deference, and we will not disturb them (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]). Thus, contrary to respondent’s contention, the court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the children to award primary physical residence to petitioner is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Sorce v Sorce, 16 AD3d 1077 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Green and Pine, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.