General
In the Matter of Paul Kosinski, Respondent, v. Norma Mahoney, Appellant
207 A.D.2d 1014617 N.Y.S.2d 696·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1994·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of Paul Kosinski, Respondent, v Norma Mahoney, Appellant.
[617 NYS2d 696]
[MAJORITY]
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Onondaga County Family Court (Buck, J.). We add only that the contention of respondent that the court erred in not obtaining a psychological evaluation is without merit. The decision whether to direct a psychological or social evaluation in a child custody dispute is within the sound discretion of the court (see, Kesseler v Kesseler, 10 NY2d 445, 452, rearg denied 11 NY2d 721, mot to amend remittitur granted 11 NY2d 716; Family Ct Act § 251). There is nothing in the record to indicate that the child "displayed emotional problems which would make the assistance of psychological experts necessary” (Mascoli v Mascoli, 132 AD2d 653, 654; see, Matter of Clark v Dunn, 195 AD2d 811, 814; cf., Giralda v Giraldo, 85 AD2d 164). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.