Wodka v. Wodka, 168 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Wodka v. Wodka, 168 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …defiance of a court order is but one factor to be considered when determining the relative fitness of the parties and what custody arrangement is in the children's best interests at p. 1001 ✓ Topic ↗
16 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: HOWELL, PATRICK A. v. LOVELL, FAATIMAH A. (nyappdiv, 2013-02-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) HOWELL, PATRICK A. v. LOVELL, FAATIMAH A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
It is undisputed that “defiance of a court order is but one factor to be considered when determining the relative fitness of the parties and what custody arrangement is in the child’s best interests]” (Wodka v Wodka, 168 AD2d 1000, 1001 [1990]; see Tarrant, 96 AD3d at 1582; see generally Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tarrant v. Ostrowski
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although “defiance of a court order is but one factor to be considered when determining the relative fitness of the parties and what custody arrangement is in the child[ren]’s best interest[s]” (Wodka v Wodka, 168 AD2d 1000, 1001 [1990]), we conclude that the court properly weighed and considered all of the relevant factors, some of which favored the father while others favored the mother.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tarrant v. Ostrowski
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although “defiance of a court order is but one factor to be considered when determining the relative fitness of the parties and what custody arrangement is in the child[ren]’s best interest[s]” (Wodka v Wodka, 168 AD2d 1000, 1001 [1990]), we conclude that the court properly weighed and considered all of the relevant factors, some of which favored the father while others favored the mother.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barnes v. Barnes
N.Y. App. Div. · 1996 · confidence medium
Pending the hearing, temporary custody of the children shall continue with plaintiff (see, Wodka v Wodka, supra, at 1001; Mosesku v Mosesku, 108 AD2d 795, 796 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Radford v. Propper
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · confidence medium
Significantly, the father’s relocation to New Jersey, in violation of the court’s temporary restraining order, destroyed the stability and continuity upon which the Family Court based its denial of the mother’s first petition for physical custody (see, Wodka v Wodka, 168 AD2d 1000, 1001 ["defiance of a court order is but one factor to be considered when determining the relative fitness of the parties and what custody arrangement is in the child’s best interest”]; see also, Ideman v Ideman, 168 AD2d 1001 ; Entwistle v Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380 , supra).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James P. Wodka
v.
Helen Wodka, Appellant James Wodka v. Helen Wodka, Appellant Helen Wodka v. James P. Wodka
Appeal No. 1.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 21, 1990.
168 A.D.2d 1000
1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16574
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

— Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: It was an abuse of discretion for the court to award permanent custody of the parties’ child to the father without conducting a factual hearing to determine the fundamental issue of the best interests of the child (Ideman v Ideman, 168 AD2d 1001 [decided herewith]; Mosesku v Mosesku, 108 AD2d 795; Matter of Blake v Blake, 106 AD2d 916). We find no merit to the father’s contention that the court’s summary resolution of the custody issue was proper because the mother willfully refused to obey a court order to return to New York following her relocation with the child to Oregon.[*1001] Although not necessary to our determination, we note that the court was without authority to compel the mother to return to New York and that she complied with that part of the order that directed the return of the child. In any event, defiance of a court order is but one factor to be considered when determining the relative fitness of the parties and what custody arrangement is in the child’s best interest (see, Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 94; Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242, 251). Accordingly, we reverse the order and remit the matter for a custody hearing to be conducted by a different Judge (see, Matter of Blake v Blake, supra, at 916-917). Physical custody is to be continued with the father pending the determination of permanent custody (see, Mosesku v Mosesku, supra). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, O’Donnell, J. — custody.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.