From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Metzger v. Metzger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 1997
240 A.D.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 23, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the issue of custody to be held forthwith and a de novo determination of the mother's motion for a change of custody. Custody shall remain with the father pending the hearing and a new determination as to custody.

This appeal involves the custody of the parties' young children. The Supreme Court denied the mother's motion to modify the custody provision of a postjudgment stipulation of settlement made in open court, which had resolved the issues of custody and visitation of the children. The court determined that the mother failed to present evidence which would require a hearing on her motion. We disagree. The submissions of the parties raised a host of serious and conflicting allegations on the issue of parental fitness. "As a general rule, it is error as a matter of law to make an order respecting custody based on controverted allegations without having had the benefits of a full hearing in order to resolve those factual issues which develop from conflicting affidavits" ( Biagi v. Biagi, 124 A.D.2d 770, 771; see also, Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768, 769-770; Matter of Klang v. Klang, 235 A.D.2d 476; Robert C.R. v. Victoria R., 143 A.D.2d 262, 263).

Moreover, custody determinations are to be made upon consideration of all relevant circumstances to reach the disposition that promotes the best interests of the child ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 95; Buhrmeister v. McFarland, 235 A.D.2d 846). There was no determination as to the children's best interests. A hearing, followed by a judical determination as to the best interests of the children is necessary. Accordingly, the matter is remitted for a custody hearing at which the parties and the Law Guardian can present their evidence.

Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Metzger v. Metzger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 1997
240 A.D.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Metzger v. Metzger

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN METZGER, Respondent, v. SHELIA METZGER, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 23, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
659 N.Y.S.2d 300

Citing Cases

Weisman v. Weisman

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court,…

Pudalov v. Pudalov

We agree with the appellant-respondent father that, as a practical matter, the Supreme Court terminated his…