Corigliano v. Corigliano

297 A.D.2d 328, 746 N.Y.2d 313, 746 N.Y.S.2d 313, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7976
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 19, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 328 (Corigliano v. Corigliano) 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
Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 A.D.2d 328, 746 N.Y.2d 313, 746 N.Y.S.2d 313, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

[329]*329A parent who seeks a change of custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Coutsoukis v Samora, 265 AD2d 482, 483; Teuschler v Teuschler, 242 AD2d 289, 290; Matter of Miller v Lee, 225 AD2d 778, 779). A change of custody should be made only if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification (see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95-96).

The plaintiff father alleges that the defendant mother now works full time in Connecticut and attends college three nights a week. He further alleges that the parties’ eldest child lives with his paternal grandparents during the school week and has repeatedly expressed a desire to reside with him. In view of these allegations, an evidentiary hearing with respect to the branch of the father’s cross motion which was, inter alia, to award custody of the subject child to him, is warranted.

The Supreme Court also erred in denying that branch of the father’s cross motion which was to appoint a law guardian to represent the subject child separately from his siblings. As the law guardian adopted the position that the subject child remain with the mother and his two siblings at the outset of the proceeding, without making an appropriate inquiry, the potential conflict of interest in the law guardian’s continued representation of the subject child warrants the appointment of an independent law guardian for the subject child (cf Matter of Carballeira v Shumway, 273 AD2d 753; Matter of Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 261 AD2d 623, 624).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of R.B. v. I.S.
2024 NY Slip Op 50228(U) (Richmond Family Court, 2024)
N.J.L v. C.A.L
2024 NY Slip Op 50140(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2024)
Matter of Micah S. (Rogerio S.)
2022 NY Slip Op 03554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Adonnis M. (Kenyetta M.)
2021 NY Slip Op 03322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Oliver A. (Oguis A.-D.)
2018 NY Slip Op 8640 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
S., BRIAN, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
In re Brian S.
141 A.D.3d 1145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Smith v. Anderson
137 A.D.3d 1505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re James I.
128 A.D.3d 1285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Alvarez v. Alvarez
114 A.D.3d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Rivera v. LaSalle
84 A.D.3d 1436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Randi NN.
68 A.D.3d 1458 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Barbara ZZ. v. Daniel A.
64 A.D.3d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
DiVittorio v. DiVittorio
36 A.D.3d 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Vasquez-Williams v. Williams
32 A.D.3d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
McNally v. McNally
28 A.D.3d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Martin R.G. v. Ofelia G.O.
24 A.D.3d 305 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Pudalov v. Pudalov
308 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Madden v. Cavanaugh
307 A.D.2d 266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
297 A.D.2d 328, 746 N.Y.2d 313, 746 N.Y.S.2d 313, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corigliano-v-corigliano-nyappdiv-2002.