Case ID: nys_152/html/1047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VAN SYCKLE v. VAN SYCKLE.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    April 30, 1915.)
    Divorce cg^303—Custody- of Infant Child—Eights of Father.
    Where a husband obtained an absolute divorce, and the custody of an infant child was awarded to the mother, who, shortly upon her remarriage, left it with the maternal grandmother, the father, who was a man of good character and better able to care for the child, had a right to its custody.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Divorce, Cent. Dig. §§ 793-795; Dec. Dig. <S=>303.]
    Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.
    Action for divorce by William Van Syckle against Bertha Van Syckle. From an order denying his motion for the custody of an infant child, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and motion granted.
    Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, CARR, STAPLETON, and PUTNAM, JJ.
    William R. Murphy, of Brooklyn, for appellant.
    John Santora, of New York City, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The father of a girl now five years of age obtained an absolute divorce, but the child was awarded to the mother, who, shortly upon remarriage, committed it to the maternal grandmother, to whom the court has now awarded it by amendment of the judgment. The father has some right to the custody of his child; the grandmother has none. The father is, like the grandmother, of good character; the father, by reason of his income, is better able to care for the child. There is no consideration related to the child’s welfare that requires that the grandmother be preferred.

The order is reversed, and the plaintiff’s motion granted, with a-provision that the grandparents should not be denied reasonable opportunity to see the child.