Gold v. Gold

47 A.D.3d 714, 848 N.Y.S.2d 892
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 714 (Gold v. Gold) 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
Gold v. Gold, 47 A.D.3d 714, 848 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation, the paternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated April 12, 2007, which, without a hearing, denied her petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[715]*715On December 6, 2006, in settlement of pending litigation between them, the parties entered into a stipulation in open court, which provided that the appellant Florence Gold (hereinafter the grandmother) was allowed five supervised visits per year with the grandchildren in Dutchess County. After having the first of these visits in February 2007, the grandmother filed the instant petition in March 2007, requesting unsupervised visitation in her home in Bronx County on the ground that a deterioration in her health had made it difficult for her to travel to Dutchess County.

The Family Court properly denied the petition without a hearing. The grandmother voluntarily entered into the settlement agreement defining the terms of her visitation with the grandchildren, and she failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing that there had been a material change of circumstances in the four months since that agreement which would entitle her to a hearing on the issue of modification (see Nash v YablonNash, 16 AD3d 471 [2005]; Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11 AD3d 471 [2004]; Matter of Timson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691, 692 [2004]).

The grandmother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Lifson, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gold v. Gold
53 A.D.3d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 A.D.3d 714, 848 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gold-v-gold-nyappdiv-2008.