James M. v. Rosana R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

James M. v. Rosana R.

69 A.D.3d 449, 892 N.Y.2d 391

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 449 (James M. v. Rosana R.) 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

James M. v. Rosana R., 69 A.D.3d 449, 892 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Family Court properly denied the mother’s request to extend her visitation further, to direct that a cell phone be given to her 11-year-old daughter, and to direct that she have “meaningful input” on nonemergency decisions. The mother failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances, which would have warranted modification of the September 9, 2005 order of visitation (see Matter of Alexander v Alexander, 62 AD3d 866 [2009]). Given the modifications made by Family Court to the existing schedule based on the parties’ agreement, there is no reason to conclude that further changes are needed to protect the child’s best interests (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Concur—Saxe, J.P, Catterson, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Family Court properly denied the mother’s request to extend her visitation further, to direct that a cell phone be given to her 11-year-old daughter, and to direct that she have “meaningful input” on nonemergency decisions. The mother failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances, which would have warranted modification of the September 9, 2005 order of visitation (see Matter of Alexander v Alexander, 62 AD3d 866 [2009]). Given the modifications made by Family Court to the existing schedule based on the parties’ agreement, there is no reason to conclude that further changes are needed to protect the child’s best interests (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Concur—Saxe, J.P, Catterson, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 449, 892 N.Y.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-m-v-rosana-r-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack