Matter of Antonio Dwayne G. v. Ericka Monte E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Antonio Dwayne G. v. Ericka Monte E.

137 A.D.3d 647, 27 N.Y.S.3d 561

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 24, 2016·No. 605·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Ref.), entered on or about September 9, 2014, which granted, without a hearing, the attorney for the child’s motion to dismiss petitioner father’s petition to modify an order of custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in declining to hold a hearing before dismissing the father’s petition to modify the existing custody arrangement. As this Court noted on a prior appeal regarding the denial of a petition by the father to modify the 2004 order of custody, “A court is not required to conduct a hearing whenever a party moves for a change in custody especially where, as here, the claims are speculative and frivolous” (96 AD3d 697, 697 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Notably, the father even acknowledges that he failed to make the required evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing.

*648 The Referee was not required to meet with the child in camera, and it was proper for the attorney for the child to inform the court of her client’s position (see Matter of Alfredo J.T. v Jodi D., 120 AD3d 1138 [1st Dept 2014]; 22 NYCRR 7.2). Nor has the father demonstrated that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Devonte M.T. [Leroy T.], 79 AD3d 1818 [4th Dept 2010]).

The father’s remaining arguments are not properly before this Court, as they are being raised for the first time on appeal and are based on matters dehors the record.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol J. Goldstein, Ref.), entered on or about September 9, 2014, which granted, without a hearing, the attorney for the child’s motion to dismiss petitioner father’s petition to modify an order of custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in declining to hold a hearing before dismissing the father’s petition to modify the existing custody arrangement. As this Court noted on a prior appeal regarding the denial of a petition by the father to modify the 2004 order of custody, “A court is not required to conduct a hearing whenever a party moves for a change in custody especially where, as here, the claims are speculative and frivolous” (96 AD3d 697, 697 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Notably, the father even acknowledges that he failed to make the required evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing.

*648 The Referee was not required to meet with the child in camera, and it was proper for the attorney for the child to inform the court of her client’s position (see Matter of Alfredo J.T. v Jodi D., 120 AD3d 1138 [1st Dept 2014]; 22 NYCRR 7.2). Nor has the father demonstrated that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Devonte M.T. [Leroy T.], 79 AD3d 1818 [4th Dept 2010]).

The father’s remaining arguments are not properly before this Court, as they are being raised for the first time on appeal and are based on matters dehors the record.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Matter of Antonio Dwayne G. v. Ericka Monte E., 137 A.D.3d 647, 27 N.Y.S.3d 561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

137 A.D.3d 647 (Matter of Antonio Dwayne G. v. Ericka Monte E.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related