Kjellgren v. Kjellgren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kjellgren v. Kjellgren

286 A.D.2d 753, 730 N.Y.S.2d 734, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8686

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 753 (Kjellgren v. Kjellgren) 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

Kjellgren v. Kjellgren, 286 A.D.2d 753, 730 N.Y.S.2d 734, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered July 30, 1999, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), entered May 30, 2000, as denied that branch of his motion which was to change custody of the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to change custody of the parties’ children without conducting a hearing. A parent who seeks a . change of custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see, DiVittorio v DiVittorio, 283 AD2d 390; Matter of Miller v Lee, 225 AD2d 778). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the father failed to meet his threshold burden of proffering sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a change of custody would be in the best interests of the children (see, DiVittorio v DiVittorio, supra; Hom v Hom, 270 AD2d 391).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered July 30, 1999, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), entered May 30, 2000, as denied that branch of his motion which was to change custody of the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to change custody of the parties’ children without conducting a hearing. A parent who seeks a . change of custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see, DiVittorio v DiVittorio, 283 AD2d 390; Matter of Miller v Lee, 225 AD2d 778). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the father failed to meet his threshold burden of proffering sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a change of custody would be in the best interests of the children (see, DiVittorio v DiVittorio, supra; Hom v Hom, 270 AD2d 391).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 753, 730 N.Y.S.2d 734, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kjellgren-v-kjellgren-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack