Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, upheld an order from the Supreme Court of Oneida County, which had been issued by Judge David A. Murad on December 15, 2011. The order granted Todd M. Hobin sole legal and physical custody of the couple's youngest child. Candice L. Hobin, the defendant-appellant, represented herself in the appeal, while Todd M. Hobin was represented by the law firm Getnick, Livingston, Atkinson, Priore, LLP, with Thomas L. Atkinson as counsel. John G. Koslosky served as the attorney for the child. The appellate court affirmed the original order without costs, agreeing with the reasoning provided in the Supreme Court's decision. The decision was entered on June 7, 2013.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Lower Court Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision without imposing any additional costs on the parties involved.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the original order without costs, agreeing with the reasoning provided in the Supreme Court's decision.
Custody Determinationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision granting sole legal and physical custody to one parent, affirming the reasoning provided by the Supreme Court.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, upheld an order from the Supreme Court of Oneida County, which had been issued by Judge David A. Murad on December 15, 2011. The order granted Todd M. Hobin sole legal and physical custody of the couple's youngest child.
Pro Se Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court considered the appeal of a party who represented herself without legal counsel.
Reasoning: Candice L. Hobin, the defendant-appellant, represented herself in the appeal, while Todd M. Hobin was represented by the law firm Getnick, Livingston, Atkinson, Priore, LLP, with Thomas L. Atkinson as counsel.
Role of Child's Attorneysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney for the child participated in the appellate proceedings to represent the interests of the child involved in the custody dispute.
Reasoning: John G. Koslosky served as the attorney for the child.