Angel M.S. v. Thomas J.S., 41 A.D.3d 1227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Angel M.S. v. Thomas J.S., 41 A.D.3d 1227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2008–2015 · …is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record at p. 1228 Topic ↗
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Rawleigh v. Gallt
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Thus, contrary to the father's contention, the court's determination that it is in the best interests of the child to continue primary physical custody with the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Papineau v Sanford , 189 AD3d 2147, 2147-2148 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 911 [2021]; Matter of Angel M.S. v Thomas J.S. , 41 AD3d 1227, 1228 [4th Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Biagini v. Parent
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
We see no basis to disturb the court’s determination inasmuch as it was based on the court’s credibility assessments of the witnesses and “is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Angel M.S. v Thomas J.S., 41 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Biagini v. Parent
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
We see no basis to disturb the court’s determination inasmuch as it was based on the court’s credibility assessments of the witnesses and “is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Angel M.S. v Thomas J.S., 41 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Krug v. Krug
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
We see no basis to disturb the court’s determination inasmuch as it was based on the court’s credibility assessments of the witnesses and “is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Angel M.S. v Thomas J.S., 41 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Angel M.S.
v.
Thomas J.S.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 8, 2007.
41 A.D.3d 1227
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Livingston County (Ronald A. Cicoria, J.), entered December 8, 2005 in a proceed[*1228] ing pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order awarded the parties joint custody of the children with primary physical residence with petitioner and visitation to respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order granting the parties joint custody of their two children, with primary physical placement with petitioner and visitation to respondent. Family Court determined following a lengthy hearing that both parties have strong and loving bonds with the children, although respondent has a history of anger management problems and petitioner has on occasion failed to recognize safety hazards in her home. The court determined that, because petitioner has been the children’s primary caregiver, she is better suited to nurture the children and to provide for their emotional support (see generally Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211-212 [1992]), and that she is more inclined to accommodate a placement schedule that permits the children maximum access to respondent. The court’s determinations with respect to the credibility of the witnesses are entitled to great deference, and we will not disturb them (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]). Thus, contrary to respondent’s contention, the court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the children to award primary physical residence to petitioner is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Sorce v Sorce, 16 AD3d 1077 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Green and Pine, JJ.