Saylor v. Bukowski
| Decision Date | 13 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. V-4172-17,2018-05995 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Adam SAYLOR, Respondent, v. Joyelle BUKOWSKI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
170 A.D.3d 862
96 N.Y.S.3d 119
In the Matter of Adam SAYLOR, Respondent,
v.
Joyelle BUKOWSKI, Appellant.
2018-05995
Docket No. V-4172-17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—February 19, 2019
March 13, 2019
Joyelle Bukowski, Coram, NY, appellant pro se.
Mary Beth Daniels, Sound Beach, NY, attorney for the child.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Matthew G. Hughes, J.), dated March 23, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the father's petition for sole custody of the parties' child.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties, who were never married, have one child, born in 2012. For approximately the first three years of the child's life, the mother was the child's primary caregiver and permitted the father very limited contact with the child. In 2015, the father filed a parental access petition in the Family Court. In July 2015, the parties entered into a temporary stipulation of settlement wherein the father would have parental access three days a week. However, the mother failed to comply with the parental access schedule. Moreover, the mother made several false allegations that the father had physically and sexually abused the child. By making the false allegations, the mother exposed the child to unnecessary, invasive medical examinations and interrogations. On March 16, 2017, the father filed a petition for sole custody of the child. After a hearing, the court granted the petition, and the mother appeals.
"The paramount concern in any custody ... determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances" (
Matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ambrose v. Ambrose
...awarding him permanent custody, and the temporary order is no longer in 113 N.Y.S.3d 109 effect (see Matter of Saylor v. Bukowski, 170 A.D.3d 862, 863, 96 N.Y.S.3d 119 ; Roberts v. Roberts, 159 A.D.3d 932, 933, 74 N.Y.S.3d 49 ). Any alleged defect in the temporary order does not render defe......
-
Pritchard v. Coelho
...order does not render defective the permanent order, which was based upon a full and fair hearing (see Matter of Saylor v. Bukowski, 170 A.D.3d 862, 863, 96 N.Y.S.3d 119 ; Matter of Miedema v. Miedema, 144 A.D.3d 803, 804, 40 N.Y.S.3d 559 ; Haggerty v. Haggerty, 78 A.D.3d 998, 999, 911 N.Y.......
-
Sintyago v. Fernandez, 2020–05266
...182 A.D.3d 604, 605–606, 122 N.Y.S.3d 656 ; see Ambrose v. Ambrose, 176 A.D.3d 1148, 1150, 113 N.Y.S.3d 106 ; Matter of Saylor v. Bukowski, 170 A.D.3d 862, 96 N.Y.S.3d 119 ). Since a custody determination is dependent in large part upon the assessment by the court of the witnesses' credibil......
-
Brown v. Elfaiz
...182 A.D.3d 604, 605, 122 N.Y.S.3d 656 ; Ambrose v. Ambrose, 176 A.D.3d 1148, 1150, 113 N.Y.S.3d 106 ; Matter of Saylor v. Bukowski, 170 A.D.3d 862, 863, 96 N.Y.S.3d 119 ). In any event, any alleged defect in the prior temporary order does not render defective the subject order, which was ba......