Kruty v. Manell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kruty v. Manell

217 A.D.2d 724, 628 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7649

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 724 (Kruty v. Manell) 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

Kruty v. Manell, 217 A.D.2d 724, 628 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lewis, J.), entered December 8, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for a modification of an order of visitation.

Initially, we note that only the order entered December 8, 1993 denying petitioner’s application for modification of visitation is properly before this Court. As to that petition, the record discloses that petitioner failed to present any evidence of a substantial change in circumstances meriting a change in the visitation restriction requiring supervised visitation. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lewis, J.), entered December 8, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for a modification of an order of visitation.

Initially, we note that only the order entered December 8, 1993 denying petitioner’s application for modification of visitation is properly before this Court. As to that petition, the record discloses that petitioner failed to present any evidence of a substantial change in circumstances meriting a change in the visitation restriction requiring supervised visitation. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 724, 628 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kruty-v-manell-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack