TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wodka v. Wodka

James P. Wodka v. Helen Wodka, Appellant James Wodka v. Helen Wodka, Appellant Helen Wodka v. James P. Wodka

Wodka v. Wodka, 168 A.D.2d 1000 (1990)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 21, 1990
Docket
No. 1
Citations
168 A.D.2d 1000565 N.Y.S.2d 3531990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16574

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

— 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1990: 11991: 11993: 21994: 11996: 11997: 11998: 12012: 22013: 119902026peak 1993 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Barnes v. Barnes234 A.D.2d 959 (1996)
  2. Wiles v. Wiles171 A.D.2d 398 (1991)
  3. Radford v. Propper190 A.D.2d 93 (1993)
  4. HOWELL, PATRICK A. v. LOVELL, FAATIMAH A.103 A.D.3d 1229 (2013)
  5. Klang v. Klang235 A.D.2d 476 (1997)
  6. King v. King251 A.D.2d 1028 (1998)

Most recent

  1. HOWELL, PATRICK A. v. LOVELL, FAATIMAH A.103 A.D.3d 1229 (2013)
  2. TARRANT, DANIEL v. OSTROWSKI, SHANNONNo. CAF 11-01859 (N.Y. App. Div. June 15, 2012)
  3. Tarrant v. Ostrowski96 A.D.3d 1580 (2012)
  4. King v. King251 A.D.2d 1028 (1998)
  5. Klang v. Klang235 A.D.2d 476 (1997)
  6. Barnes v. Barnes234 A.D.2d 959 (1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Mosesku v. Mosesku, 108 A.D.2d 795 (1985) 27
Blake v. Blake, 106 A.D.2d 916 (1984) 20
Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 432 N.E.2d 765 (N.Y. 1982) 834
Nehra v. Uhlar, 372 N.E.2d 4 (N.Y. 1977) 196
Ideman v. Ideman, 168 A.D.2d 1001 (1990) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list