Jackson v. Beach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. Beach

78 A.D.3d 1549, 910 N.Y.S.2d 725

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 2010·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Stephen W. Cass, A.J.), entered March 26, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, dismissed a petition for modification of custody.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[1550] Memorandum: Petitioner father, as limited by his brief, contends on appeal that Family Court erred in dismissing his petition seeking modification of a prior custody order with prejudice following a hearing. Contrary to the father’s contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court’s determination that the father did not make a sufficient showing of a change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the subject child would be served by a change in custody (see Matter of Amy L.M. v Kevin M.M., 31 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2006]; see generally Matter of Perry v Korman, 63 AD3d 1564, 1565 [2009]; Matter of McLeod v McLeod, 59 AD3d 1011 [2009]). Indeed, the father failed to make “the requisite evidentiary showing of a ‘change of circumstances warranting'a reexamination of the existing custody arrangement’ ” (Amy L.M., 31 AD3d at 1225). Present — Smith, J.P., Lindley, Sconiers, Pine arid Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Stephen W. Cass, A.J.), entered March 26, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, dismissed a petition for modification of custody.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[1550] Memorandum: Petitioner father, as limited by his brief, contends on appeal that Family Court erred in dismissing his petition seeking modification of a prior custody order with prejudice following a hearing. Contrary to the father’s contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court’s determination that the father did not make a sufficient showing of a change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the subject child would be served by a change in custody (see Matter of Amy L.M. v Kevin M.M., 31 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2006]; see generally Matter of Perry v Korman, 63 AD3d 1564, 1565 [2009]; Matter of McLeod v McLeod, 59 AD3d 1011 [2009]). Indeed, the father failed to make “the requisite evidentiary showing of a ‘change of circumstances warranting'a reexamination of the existing custody arrangement’ ” (Amy L.M., 31 AD3d at 1225). Present — Smith, J.P., Lindley, Sconiers, Pine arid Gorski, JJ.

Jackson v. Beach, 78 A.D.3d 1549, 910 N.Y.S.2d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

78 A.D.3d 1549 (Jackson v. Beach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related