Lawyers Manual - Unified Court System

Litigating Custody and Visitation 77
12. See e.g. Mitchell v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 845 (3 Dept 1994); Olmo v Olmo,
140 AD2d 677 (2d Dept 1988).
13. See e.g. Anonymous G. v Anonymous G., 132 AD2d 459 (1st Dept 1987).
14. See e.g. Peters v Blue, NYLJ, June 23, 1997, at 29 (Fam Ct, NY County);
Pratt v Wood, 210 AD2d 741 (3 Dept 1994).
15. See Kaplan v Chamberlain, NYLJ, Sept. 17, 1993, at 27 (Fam Ct, NY
County); TI v PS, NYLJ, June 5, 1995, at 31 (Fam Ct, NY County, 1995).
16. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act § 207; Domestic
Relations Law § 76.
17. See Laws of 1999, ch 378.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. 213 AD2d 804 (3d Dept 1995).
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. 263 AD2d 783 (3d Dept 1999),
24. Acevedo v Acevedo, 200 AD2d 567 (2d Dept 1994).
25. Spencer v Small, 263 AD2d 783, 785 (3d Dept 1999).
26. NYLJ, July 13, 1992, at 31, col 1 (Sup Ct, NY County).
27. Laws of 1996, ch 85.
28. Fields, M. D., The Impact of Spouse Abuse on Children and Its Relevance in
Custody and Visitation Decisions in New York State, 240 Cornell J L and
Pub Pol 221 (1994).
29. American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force, Report on
Violence and the Family (1996), at 37.
30. Moorehead v Moorehead, 197 AD2d 517, 519 (2d Dept 1993). The Court
found that the parties were “equally able to care for their children” and
therefore, stability was of central importance. The court also considered the
young ages of the children who were 1.5 and 2 years old.
31. In Moorehead, the court found that a long-term custody arrangement may
be disrupted if it would serve the best interest of the child. Id. at 519-520.