Austin v. Pacchiano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Austin v. Pacchiano

249 A.D.2d 599, 670 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585

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

DecidedApril 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 599 (Austin v. Pacchiano) 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

Austin v. Pacchiano, 249 A.D.2d 599, 670 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Mercure, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), entered December 23, 1996, which denied respondent’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of prior orders of custody and visitation, and (2) from an order of said court, entered February 14, 1997, which, inter alia, denied respondent’s motion to resettle the previous orders.

A March 1993 order of Family Court granted respondent sole custody of the parties’ minor child and delineated petitioner’s visitation rights. Due to the parties’ apparent intransigence, Family Court was required to issue five additional orders be[600]*600tween November 1993 and September 1994 modifying the terms and conditions of visitation. Then, in August 1996, respondent made a further application to modify the six prior orders so as to incorporate all operative provisions into a “whole new order”. In our view, Family Court acted well within its discretion in refusing to grant respondent this novel relief and in denying her subsequent motion for resettlement.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.

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

—Mercure, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), entered December 23, 1996, which denied respondent’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of prior orders of custody and visitation, and (2) from an order of said court, entered February 14, 1997, which, inter alia, denied respondent’s motion to resettle the previous orders.

A March 1993 order of Family Court granted respondent sole custody of the parties’ minor child and delineated petitioner’s visitation rights. Due to the parties’ apparent intransigence, Family Court was required to issue five additional orders be[600]*600tween November 1993 and September 1994 modifying the terms and conditions of visitation. Then, in August 1996, respondent made a further application to modify the six prior orders so as to incorporate all operative provisions into a “whole new order”. In our view, Family Court acted well within its discretion in refusing to grant respondent this novel relief and in denying her subsequent motion for resettlement.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 599, 670 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-pacchiano-nyappdiv-1998.