Narrative Opinion Summary
In a child custody case under Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals an order from the Family Court in Dutchess County (Judge Amodeo, September 17, 1996), which awarded custody of the minor child to the father. The appellate court affirms this order, indicating that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's decision, referencing precedents such as Matter of Castillo v Hernandez, Matter of Williamson v Williamson, and Matter of Canazon v Canazon. The court finds no merit in the mother's remaining arguments, and the decision is upheld without costs or disbursements. Judges Sullivan, Pizzuto, Santucci, and Joy concur in the ruling.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appeal and Affirmation in Custody Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found no merit in the mother's arguments and upheld the Family Court's decision without additional costs.
Reasoning: The court finds no merit in the mother's remaining arguments, and the decision is upheld without costs or disbursements.
Custody Determination under Family Court Act Article 6subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the Family Court's decision to award custody to the father, finding a sound and substantial basis for the ruling in the record.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirms this order, indicating that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's decision.
Precedential Support in Custody Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision was supported by precedents, reinforcing the basis for awarding custody to the father.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirms this order, indicating that there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's decision, referencing precedents such as Matter of Castillo v Hernandez, Matter of Williamson v Williamson, and Matter of Canazon v Canazon.