Porges v. Porges
| Citation | 63 A.D.2d 712,405 N.Y.S.2d 115 |
| Parties | Robert PORGES, Appellant, v. Irene PORGES, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1978 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
DaSilva & Samuelson, Garden City (Elliot D. Samuelson, Garden City, of counsel), for appellant.
Freedman, Oziel & Brett, New York City, for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding to obtain permanent custody of children, petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (FERRARO, J.), entered September 27, 1977, as directed that custody of one of the children, Justine Porges, be awarded to respondent and permitted respondent to have unsupervised visitation with the other child, Hillary Porges, whose custody was awarded to petitioner.
By order dated March 6, 1978, this court remitted the proceeding to Special Term for the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the appeal has been held in abeyance in the interim (Porges v. Porges, App.Div., 402 N.Y.S.2d 797). The findings of fact and conclusions of law have been received by this court.
Judgment modified, on the facts, by adding thereto a provision that respondent's visitation with Hillary Porges shall be supervised. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to Special Term for the appointment of a supervisor for such visitation.
We agree with Special Term that it is in the best interests of the children to award custody of Hillary Porges to the petitioner father and to award custody of Justine Porges to the respondent mother. Respondent has demonstrated a close and caring relationship with Justine. They have resided together for the past year and there is no reason to uproot the child with another change of custody. Hillary, on the other hand, has been living with the petitioner for almost two years. Their relationship is quite close and petitioner has demonstrated an ability and willingness to retain custody of Hillary.
A reading of the record reveals a breakdown of the relationship between Hillary and respondent. Respondent's behavior has been characterized by intermittent harassment of the child. For this reason, Special Term should appoint a suitable supervisor for their visits.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krebsbach v. Gallagher
...346 N.E.2d 240), the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development (see, Porges v. Porges, 63 A.D.2d 712, 713, 405 N.Y.S.2d 115), the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra ), the rela......
-
Lenczycki v. Lenczycki
...N.E.2d 1260) but also to the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development (Porges v. Porges, 63 A.D.2d 712, 405 N.Y.S.2d 115). A careful review of the record indicates that the wife, Deborah Ann Lenczycki, is a bold-faced liar. The crux of the ent......
-
J.F. v. L.F.
...346 N.E.2d 240), the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development (see, Porges v. Porges, 63 A.D.2d 712, 713, 405 N.Y.S.2d 115), the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra ), the rela......
-
Janecka v. Franklin
...N.Y.S.2d 472, 346 N.E.2d 240); the ability of each parent to provide for the child's emotional and intellectual development (Porges v Porges, 63 AD2d 712, 713, lv denied, 45 NY2d 710 [409 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 381 N.E.2d 616]); the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the chi......