Coles v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coles v. Bailey

267 A.D.2d 723, 700 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13070

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 723 (Coles v. Bailey) 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

Coles v. Bailey, 267 A.D.2d 723, 700 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Mercure, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Hummel, J.), entered September 29, 1998, which, inter alia, dismissed respondent’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, to find petitioner in violation of a prior order of visitation.

By order entered October 20, 1995, Family Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ daughter (born in 1990) to petitioner, subject to respondent’s right to visitation on alternate weekends and holidays. In 1998, respondent filed two separate violation petitions alleging that petitioner violated the visitation provisions of the 1995 order and seeking a change of custody. Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that respondent had failed to establish a change in circumstances and dismissed the petitions. Respondent appeals and we affirm.

In view of respondent’s utter failure to establish a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the existing custody arrangement, Family Court acted well within its discretion in refusing to interview the parties’ child. Further, respondent’s challenge to Family Court’s failure to consider a report of Aaron Hoorwitz has not been preserved for our consideration. Notably, respondent did not offer the report into evidence or make a timely request for an adjournment for the purpose of producing its author. Finally, we note that, despite Family Court’s repeated warnings concerning the pitfalls of pro se representation and offers to assign a lawyer to represent respondent free of charge, respondent insisted upon representing himself.

Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Mercure, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Hummel, J.), entered September 29, 1998, which, inter alia, dismissed respondent’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, to find petitioner in violation of a prior order of visitation.

By order entered October 20, 1995, Family Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ daughter (born in 1990) to petitioner, subject to respondent’s right to visitation on alternate weekends and holidays. In 1998, respondent filed two separate violation petitions alleging that petitioner violated the visitation provisions of the 1995 order and seeking a change of custody. Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that respondent had failed to establish a change in circumstances and dismissed the petitions. Respondent appeals and we affirm.

In view of respondent’s utter failure to establish a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the existing custody arrangement, Family Court acted well within its discretion in refusing to interview the parties’ child. Further, respondent’s challenge to Family Court’s failure to consider a report of Aaron Hoorwitz has not been preserved for our consideration. Notably, respondent did not offer the report into evidence or make a timely request for an adjournment for the purpose of producing its author. Finally, we note that, despite Family Court’s repeated warnings concerning the pitfalls of pro se representation and offers to assign a lawyer to represent respondent free of charge, respondent insisted upon representing himself.

Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 723, 700 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coles-v-bailey-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack