Fitje v. Fitje

87 A.D.3d 599, 927 N.Y.2d 918
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 9, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 599 (Fitje v. Fitje) 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
Fitje v. Fitje, 87 A.D.3d 599, 927 N.Y.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[600]*600An application to modify the custody and visitation provisions of a judgment that are based upon a stipulation of the parties will not be granted absent a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances from the time of the stipulation, and that the modification would be in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Deochand v Deochand, 80 AD3d 609 [2011]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1187-1188 [2010]; Spratt v Fontana, 46 AD3d 670, 671 [2007]). A party seeking such a modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing on the application, but first must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Mazzola v Lee, 76 AD3d 531 [2010]; Matter of Grassi v Grassi, 28 AD3d 482 [2006]; Matter of Timson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691, 692 [2004]; Matter of Carpenter v Whitaker, 5 AD3d 681 [2004]; Matter of Blake v Vilbig, 288 AD2d 470 [2001]). Here, the conclusory, unsubstantiated, and nonspecific allegations set forth in the mother’s petition failed to meet this standard, and the Family Court properly dismissed the petition without a hearing (see Matter of Deochand v Deochand, 80 AD3d 609 [2011]; Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 71 AD3d 1148 [2010]; Salvatore v Salvatore, 68 AD3d 966, 967 [2009]; Matter of Blackstock v Price, 51 AD3d 914 [2008]; Spratt v Fontana, 46 AD3d 670 [2007]; Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Edem v. Wondemagegehu
2021 NY Slip Op 06169 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Reich v. Reich
140 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Whitehead v. Whitehead
122 A.D.3d 921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Matter of Acworth v. Kollmar
119 A.D.3d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Kollmar v. Kollmar
100 A.D.3d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Aronowich-Culhane v. Fournier
94 A.D.3d 1114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Grant v. Grant
89 A.D.3d 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
McNichol v. Kim
89 A.D.3d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.3d 599, 927 N.Y.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitje-v-fitje-nyappdiv-2011.