Antonio Dwayne G. v. Ericka Monte E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Antonio Dwayne G. v. Ericka Monte E.

96 A.D.3d 697, 946 N.Y.S.2d 866

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 28, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 697 (Antonio Dwayne G. v. Ericka Monte E.) 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

Antonio Dwayne G. v. Ericka Monte E., 96 A.D.3d 697, 946 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Ref.), entered on or about August 30, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted, without a hearing, respondent mother’s motion to dismiss petitioner father’s petition to modify an order of custody, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Referee, entered on or about December 7, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner’s application to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to hold a hearing before it dismissed the petition to modify the existing custody arrangement. A court is not required to conduct a hearing whenever a party moves for a change in custody especially where, as here, the claims are “speculative and frivolous” (David W. v Julia W., 158 AD2d 1, 6 [1990]). Indeed, the record shows that respondent did not medically neglect the child.

To the extent petitioner sought to reargue the motion dismissing his petition, the denial of his application is not appealable (see McCoy v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 75 AD3d 428, 430 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Ref.), entered on or about August 30, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted, without a hearing, respondent mother’s motion to dismiss petitioner father’s petition to modify an order of custody, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Referee, entered on or about December 7, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner’s application to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to hold a hearing before it dismissed the petition to modify the existing custody arrangement. A court is not required to conduct a hearing whenever a party moves for a change in custody especially where, as here, the claims are “speculative and frivolous” (David W. v Julia W., 158 AD2d 1, 6 [1990]). Indeed, the record shows that respondent did not medically neglect the child.

To the extent petitioner sought to reargue the motion dismissing his petition, the denial of his application is not appealable (see McCoy v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 75 AD3d 428, 430 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 697, 946 N.Y.S.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonio-dwayne-g-v-ericka-monte-e-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack