Faltings v. Faltings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faltings v. Faltings

35 A.D.3d 464, 824 N.Y.S.2d 726

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 464 (Faltings v. Faltings) 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

Faltings v. Faltings, 35 A.D.3d 464, 824 N.Y.S.2d 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated November 3, 2005, which, inter alia, denied her petition for visitation.

[465]*465Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The mother failed to establish changed circumstances sufficient to warrant modifying a custody order dated May 2, 2002, entered upon the parties’ stipulation, which awarded the father sole custody of the parties’ four children and effectively denied her visitation. Based on the record before it, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s petition for visitation (see Family Ct Act § 652 [b] [ii]; see also Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]; Messinger v Messinger, 16 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]; Matter of Manos v Manos, 282 AD2d 749 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated November 3, 2005, which, inter alia, denied her petition for visitation.

[465]*465Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The mother failed to establish changed circumstances sufficient to warrant modifying a custody order dated May 2, 2002, entered upon the parties’ stipulation, which awarded the father sole custody of the parties’ four children and effectively denied her visitation. Based on the record before it, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s petition for visitation (see Family Ct Act § 652 [b] [ii]; see also Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]; Messinger v Messinger, 16 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]; Matter of Manos v Manos, 282 AD2d 749 [2001]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 464, 824 N.Y.S.2d 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faltings-v-faltings-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack