Matter of Besen v. Besen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Besen v. Besen

127 A.D.3d 1076, 5 N.Y.S.3d 891

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

DecidedApril 22, 2015

Docket2014-05549

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1076 (Matter of Besen v. Besen) 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

Matter of Besen v. Besen, 127 A.D.3d 1076, 5 N.Y.S.3d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (David Freundlich, J.), dated April 17, 2014. The order, in effect, dismissed, without a hearing, the mother’s petition, inter alia, to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce so as to award her custody of the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

An order or judgment awarding custody or visitation may be modified upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances such that modification is required to ensure the continued best interests of the child (see Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Whitehead v Whitehead, 122 AD3d 921 [2014]; *1077 Kollmar v Kollmar, 100 AD3d 712 [2012]). A party seeking such a modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Resnick v Ausburn, 123 AD3d 728 [2014]; Whitehead v Whitehead, 122 AD3d 921 [2014]; Macchio v Macchio, 120 AD3d 560 [2014]). Here, the mother’s allegations were unsubstantiated and conclusory, or did not allege a material change in circumstances (see Magee v Magee, 119 AD3d 658 [2014]; Connor v Connor, 104 AD3d 638, 639 [2013]; Matter of Palmiotti v Piscitelli, 100 AD3d 637, 638 [2012]). To the extent that the mother’s petition was predicated upon difficulties she allegedly encountered in scheduling appointments for therapeutic supervised visitation with the service provider designated in the parties’judgment of divorce, we note that the judgment permits the parties to mutually agree upon another service provider. Accordingly, the Family Court properly, in effect, dismissed, without a hearing, the mother’s petition, inter alia, to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce so as to award her custody of the parties’ children.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (David Freundlich, J.), dated April 17, 2014. The order, in effect, dismissed, without a hearing, the mother’s petition, inter alia, to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce so as to award her custody of the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

An order or judgment awarding custody or visitation may be modified upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances such that modification is required to ensure the continued best interests of the child (see Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Whitehead v Whitehead, 122 AD3d 921 [2014]; *1077 Kollmar v Kollmar, 100 AD3d 712 [2012]). A party seeking such a modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Resnick v Ausburn, 123 AD3d 728 [2014]; Whitehead v Whitehead, 122 AD3d 921 [2014]; Macchio v Macchio, 120 AD3d 560 [2014]). Here, the mother’s allegations were unsubstantiated and conclusory, or did not allege a material change in circumstances (see Magee v Magee, 119 AD3d 658 [2014]; Connor v Connor, 104 AD3d 638, 639 [2013]; Matter of Palmiotti v Piscitelli, 100 AD3d 637, 638 [2012]). To the extent that the mother’s petition was predicated upon difficulties she allegedly encountered in scheduling appointments for therapeutic supervised visitation with the service provider designated in the parties’judgment of divorce, we note that the judgment permits the parties to mutually agree upon another service provider. Accordingly, the Family Court properly, in effect, dismissed, without a hearing, the mother’s petition, inter alia, to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce so as to award her custody of the parties’ children.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 1076, 5 N.Y.S.3d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-besen-v-besen-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack