Cooper v. Wolkowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooper v. Wolkowitz

215 A.D.2d 380, 626 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4697

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 380 (Cooper v. Wolkowitz) 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

Cooper v. Wolkowitz, 215 A.D.2d 380, 626 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 651 to modify visitation, the mother appeals, by permission, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Decker, J.), dated September 29, 1993, as denied her cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, to impose sanctions, and to award attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the Family Court, Nassau County properly exercised its discretion in declining to enforce the provisions of orders made by the Family Court, Suffolk County which conditioned any future applications for visitation by the petitioner on his obtaining psychological evaluation and counseling (see, Matter of Adam H., 195 AD2d 1074; Jones v Jones, 185 AD2d 228; Nacson v Nacson, 166 AD2d 510; Schneider v Schneider, 127 AD2d 491, affd sub nom. Paul B. S. v Pamela J. S., 70 NY2d 739). We also find that the Family Court, Nassau County properly exercised its discretion to relieve the petitioner of a $5,000 bond requirement (see, Ex Parte Rich, 254 App Div 6, 9). Finally, the Family Court, Nassau County properly exercised its discretion in declining to impose sanctions or award attorney’s fees at this stage of the proceedings [381]*381and in ordering a hearing on the issue of changed circumstances. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 651 to modify visitation, the mother appeals, by permission, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Decker, J.), dated September 29, 1993, as denied her cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, to impose sanctions, and to award attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the Family Court, Nassau County properly exercised its discretion in declining to enforce the provisions of orders made by the Family Court, Suffolk County which conditioned any future applications for visitation by the petitioner on his obtaining psychological evaluation and counseling (see, Matter of Adam H., 195 AD2d 1074; Jones v Jones, 185 AD2d 228; Nacson v Nacson, 166 AD2d 510; Schneider v Schneider, 127 AD2d 491, affd sub nom. Paul B. S. v Pamela J. S., 70 NY2d 739). We also find that the Family Court, Nassau County properly exercised its discretion to relieve the petitioner of a $5,000 bond requirement (see, Ex Parte Rich, 254 App Div 6, 9). Finally, the Family Court, Nassau County properly exercised its discretion in declining to impose sanctions or award attorney’s fees at this stage of the proceedings [381]*381and in ordering a hearing on the issue of changed circumstances. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 380, 626 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-wolkowitz-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack