AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of RICHARD PORTER, respondent, v. DAWN BURGEY, appellant.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeals from the decision dated October 14, 1997, and the order entered November 5, 1997, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from a nondispositional order in a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 (see, Fam. Ct. Act § 1112), and leave has not been granted, and for the further reason that no appeal lies from a decision (see, Dorizas v. Island Insulation Corp., 254 A.D.2d 246 ; Gill v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 249 A.D.2d 265 ;CPLR 2219[a], 5512[a]), or from an order which denies reargument of a decision (see, DeFalco v. JRS Confectionary, 118 A.D.2d 752, 753 ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order entered December 11, 1997, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court possessed adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident custody determination (see, Matter of Hermann v. Chakurmanian, 243 A.D.2d 1003 ; Asteinza v. Asteinza, 173 A.D.2d 515 ;Webster v. Webster, 163 A.D.2d 178 ; Meltzer v. Meltzer, 38 A.D.2d 522 ; cf., Metzger v. Metzger, 240 A.D.2d 642 ). The uncontroverted evidence before the court was sufficient to enable it, even without a hearing, to reach a sound conclusion that, under the circumstances of this case, it was not in the children's best interest for custody to be awarded to the mother (see, Matter of Vangas v. Ladas, 259 A.D.2d 755 [2d Dept., Mar. 29, 199 9]; Matter of Davies v. Davies, 223 A.D.2d 884 ; Matter of Goldman v. Goldman, 201 A.D.2d 860, 861-862 ; David W. v. Julia W., 158 A.D.2d 1, 6 ; Matter of Ehrlich v. Ressner, 55 A.D.2d 953 ).

We further find that the existence of exceptional circumstances justifies the court's restriction on the mother's right to visitation with the children (see, Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, 193-194, aff'd 56 N.Y.2d 938 ; Strahl v. Strahl, 66 A.D.2d 571, 574, aff'd 49 N.Y.2d 1036 ; see also, Matter of Thaxton v. Morro, 222 A.D.2d 955, 956 ).

S. MILLER, J.P., RITTER, FLORIO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF PORTER v. BURGEY
(Dec 2, 1999)