Kresnicka v. Kresnicka
| Decision Date | 25 June 1973 |
| Citation | 42 A.D.2d 607,345 N.Y.S.2d 118 |
| Parties | Magda KRESNICKA, Respondent, v. Otomar KRESNICKA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and LATHAM, GULOTTA, CHRIST and BRENNAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action in which a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, was made on June 19, 1972, granting plaintiff a divorce, after an undefended nonjury trial following defendant's withdrawal of his answer, defendant appeals, (1) as limited by his brief, from so much of the judgment as denied him visitation with the infant issue of the marriage and (2) from an order of the same court, dated February 19, 1972, which denied his motion to set aside the withdrawal of his answer and to restore the action to the contested trial calendar.
Order reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion granted to the extent that the judgment is vacated, the withdrawal of his answer is vacated with respect only to the visitation issue, and the case is to be resubmitted to the trial court for entry of a new judgment, based upon the prior proceedings, the answer with respect to the visitation issue, and the stipulation of the parties with respect to visitation. Accordingly, the new judgment shall grant defendant visitation, in accordance with the stipulation, as follows:
Appeal from judgment dismissed, without costs. No appeal lies from a judgment entered upon an inquest. In any event, the appeal from the judgment is academic in view of the determination herein upon the appeal from the order.
The parties were married in Czechoslovakia in September of 1960. There is one issue of the marriage, who is approximately eight years old. Because of marital problems in Czechoslovakia, plaintiff came to the United States with her infant son. Thereafter, defendant also came to this country in search of the infant. Upon locating him, defendant brought a habeas corpus proceeding to regain custody of the child. The proceeding terminated in favor of plaintiff.
Thereafter, in January of 1971, plaintiff instituted the instant action. The parties entered into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Proceeding for Support under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, Matter of
...986, 229 N.Y.S.2d 831, 837 (Sup.Ct., Queens)) justifies the deprivation of reasonable visitation. See also Kresnicka v. Kresnicka, 42 A.D.2d 607, 345 N.Y.S.2d 118 (2nd Dept.) and Herb v. Herb, 8 A.D.2d 419, 422, 188 N.Y.S.2d 41, 44 (4th Dept.) (only 'substantial evidence' justifies a denial......
-
Maxwell v. LeBlanc
...See Roshto v. Roshto, supra; Griffin v. Van Griffin, 267 N.W.2d 733 (Minn.1978) (evidence must be "persuasive"); Kresnicka v. Kresnicka, 42 A.D.2d 607, 345 N.Y.S.2d 118 (1973) (evidence must be "substantial"). Cf. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (evid......
-
Pablo C., Matter of
...also concluded that the denial of the right of a parent to see his child should be based on "substantial evidence." Kresnicka v. Kresnicka, 42 A.D.2d 607, 345 N.Y.S.2d 118. In Matter of Doe v. Doe, 86 Misc.2d 194, 197, 378 N.Y.S.2d 369, the Family Court stated that the person seeking such a......
-
Perkinson v. Perkinson
...(1962); Radford v. Matczuk, 223 Md. 483, 164 A.2d 904 (1960); Syas v. Syas, 150 Neb. 533, 34 N.W.2d 884 (1948); Kresnicka v. Kresnicka, 42 A.D.2d 607, 345 N.Y.S.2d 118 (1973); Bussey v. Bussey, 148 Okla. 10, 296 P. 401 (1931); Venable v. Venable, 273 S.C. 96, 254 S.E.2d 309 (1979); Slade v.......