Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: NORMAN E. GREEN, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. JACQUELINE BONTZOLAKES, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. (PROCEEDING NOS. 1 AND 3.)
IN RE: JACQUELINE BONTZOLAKES, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. NORMAN E. GREEN, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT. (PROCEEDING NO. 2.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MARY ANNE CONNELL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO, FOR NYDAYA G.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: The mother of the child at issue, the respondent in proceeding Nos. 1 and 3 and the petitioner in proceeding No. 2, appeals from an order that, following a hearing, granted the petitions in proceeding Nos. 1 and 3. The father, by those petitions, alleged that the mother violated the provisions of a prior order of custody and visitation and sought to modify that order by awarding him sole custody of the parties' daughter and granting visitation to the mother. Family Court also denied the mother's petition in proceeding No. 2 seeking modification of the visitation provisions of the prior order. Contrary to the mother's contention, the court properly awarded the father sole custody of the child (see Matter of Dubuque v. Bremiller, 79 AD3d 1743). “ ‘Generally, a court's determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record’ “ (id. at 1744). We see no basis to disturb the court's determination.
We have considered the mother's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 10–00365
Decided: April 01, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)