Alexander v. Alexander

62 A.D.3d 866, 880 N.Y.S.2d 100
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 19, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 866 (Alexander v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alexander v. Alexander, 62 A.D.3d 866, 880 N.Y.S.2d 100 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Currier-Woods, J.), entered May 12, 2008, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the petition which was to modify the visitation schedule provided in the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated June 11, 2003, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce, and directed the enrollment of the child in a Big Brothers of America program through the Boys and Girls Club.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof directing the enrollment of the child in a Big Brothers of America program through the Boys and Girls Club; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A court may modify an order awarding custody and visitation upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and that modification is required (see Family Ct Act [867]*867§ 652 [b]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381 [2004]). The standard to be applied is the best interests of the child, which is to be determined based on the totality of the circumstances (Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d at 381).

Here, the Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to modify the visitation schedule (id,.; Matter of Keylikhes v Kiejliches, 25 AD3d 801 [2006]). However, the Family Court was without authority to direct the enrollment of the child in the Big Brothers of America program through the Boys and Girls Club, as the father did not request this relief in his petition (see Matter of McAteer v Condon, 296 AD2d 412 [2002]). Mastro, J.P., Miller, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kramer v. Griffith
119 A.D.3d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Yeager v. Yeager
110 A.D.3d 1207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Maio v. DeCrescenzo
100 A.D.3d 999 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Myers v. Markey
74 A.D.3d 1344 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Puglisi v. Butler
71 A.D.3d 901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
James M. v. Rosana R.
69 A.D.3d 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.D.3d 866, 880 N.Y.S.2d 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-alexander-nyappdiv-2009.