From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Sumiya v. Murtari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 29, 2000
275 A.D.2d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

September 29, 2000.

Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Bersani, J. — Custody.

PRESENT: PINE, J. P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND BALIO, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Respondent contends that Family Court erred in denying his cross petition seeking joint custody. We disagree. The court was "in the best position to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses" ( Matter of Paul C. v. Tracy C., 209 A.D.2d 955, 956). The record supports the court's determination that, based upon the parties ' acrimonious relationship and inability to communicate in a civil manner, a change from sole custody to joint custody was not warranted ( see, Matter of Dube v. Dube, 259 A.D.2d 1041; see also, Braiman v. Braiman, 44 N.Y.2d 584, 589-590). The court also properly determined that petitioner's relocation was in the best interests of the child ( see, Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 741).

There is no merit to the contention of respondent that he was denied due process by the court's denial of his request for a jury trial. Subject to exceptions not present here ( see, Domestic Relations Law §§ 143, 173), matrimonial actions and proceedings incidental thereto are matters of equity for which "there is no right to a jury trial and thus [they] are not within the constitutional guarantees of a right to a jury trial" ( Mandel v. Mandel, 109 Misc.2d 1, 2, citing Reubens v. Joel, 13 N.Y. 488, and Powell v. Waldron, 89 N.Y. 328). We have examined respondent's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.


Summaries of

Matter of Sumiya v. Murtari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 29, 2000
275 A.D.2d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Sumiya v. Murtari

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF HIROMI SUMIYA, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 29, 2000

Citations

275 A.D.2d 928 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
714 N.Y.S.2d 254

Citing Cases

Nagel v. Nagel

Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial. Subject to exceptions not present here ( see Domestic Relations…