From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wile v. Wile

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 31, 1997
245 A.D.2d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 31, 1997

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petition denied and matter remitted to Niagara County Family Court for further proceedings. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that the determination of Family Court to change custody lacks a sound and substantial basis ( see, Matter of Aylesworth v. Aylesworth, 207 A.D.2d 970, 971). The court erred in refusing to allow respondent's attorney to re-examine the Child Protective Services caseworker after respondent's attorney had an opportunity to review reports used by the caseworker to refresh his recollection during direct examination ( see, Chabica v. Schneider, 213 A.D.2d 579, 580-581). Given the seriousness of the charges in the reports and the weight given the caseworker's testimony, the court's denial of respondent's request constitutes prejudicial error ( see, Chabica v. Schneider, supra). Furthermore, most of the evidence at the custody hearing relied upon by the court was based upon events that occurred prior to the divorce judgment.

Because of the length of time since the custody hearing and our lack of knowledge concerning the present circumstances of the parties, we remit the matter to Niagara County Family Court for a new hearing. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, Halpin, J. — Custody.)


Summaries of

Wile v. Wile

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 31, 1997
245 A.D.2d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Wile v. Wile

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TODD K. WILE, Respondent, v. BRENDA J. WILE, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 31, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
666 N.Y.S.2d 61