Getreu v. Bossert

82 A.D.3d 1098, 919 N.Y.2d 342
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[1099] One who seeks a change in visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing but must make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a material change of circumstances to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Collazo v Collazo, 78 AD3d 1177 [2010]; Matter of Reilly v Reilly, 64 AD3d 660 [2009]; Matter of Rodriguez v Hangartner, 59 AD3d 630, 630-631 [2009]; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673 [2008]; Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14 AD3d 572 [2005]). Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly denied, without a hearing, his motion to modify the “final modified order of parenting time” (see Matter of Collazo v Collazo, 78 AD3d 1177 [2010]; Matter of Reilly v Reilly, 64 AD3d at 660; Matter of Rodriguez v Hangartner, 59 AD3d at 630-631; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d at 673; Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14 AD3d at 572). Mastro, J.E, Chambers, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Getreu v. Bossert, 82 A.D.3d 1098, 919 N.Y.2d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

82 A.D.3d 1098 (Getreu v. Bossert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Lebovic v. Lebovic
2017 NY Slip Op 1857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Palmiotti v. Piscitelli
100 A.D.3d 637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)