Matter of Castagnini v. Hyman-Hunt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Castagnini v. Hyman-Hunt

123 A.D.3d 926, 996 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

Docket2012-11266

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 926 (Matter of Castagnini v. Hyman-Hunt) 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 Castagnini v. Hyman-Hunt, 123 A.D.3d 926, 996 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Michael L. Katz, J.), dated November 27, 2012. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father’s petition to modify so much of a prior order of that court as terminated his visitation.

Ordered that the order dated November 27, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Where a court has previously sanctioned a custody or visitation arrangement, the “ ‘[m]odification of [that] arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child’ ” (Matter of Mazzola v Lee, 76 AD3d 531, 531 [2010], quoting Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 71 AD3d 1148, 1148-1149 [2010]). Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessary in determining whether a modification of visitation is warranted (see Matter of Figueroa v Lewis, 81 AD3d 823, 824 [2011]; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673, 673 [2008]). However, a parent seeking a change of visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Figueroa v Lewis, 81 AD3d at 824; Matter of Ross v Ross, 68 AD3d 878, 878-879 [2009]; Matter of Reilly v Reilly, 64 AD3d 660, 660 [2009]; Matter of Rodriguez v Hangartner, 59 AD3d 630, 630-631 [2009]). Here, the father failed to allege a sufficient change in circumstances between the issuance of a custody order by the Family Court on May 8, 2009, and the filing of his petition. Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition without a hearing (see Matter of Collazo v Collazo, 78 AD3d 1177 [2010]; Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14 AD3d 572 [2005]).

Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Barros, 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, Kings County (Michael L. Katz, J.), dated November 27, 2012. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father’s petition to modify so much of a prior order of that court as terminated his visitation.

Ordered that the order dated November 27, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Where a court has previously sanctioned a custody or visitation arrangement, the “ ‘[m]odification of [that] arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child’ ” (Matter of Mazzola v Lee, 76 AD3d 531, 531 [2010], quoting Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 71 AD3d 1148, 1148-1149 [2010]). Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessary in determining whether a modification of visitation is warranted (see Matter of Figueroa v Lewis, 81 AD3d 823, 824 [2011]; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673, 673 [2008]). However, a parent seeking a change of visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Figueroa v Lewis, 81 AD3d at 824; Matter of Ross v Ross, 68 AD3d 878, 878-879 [2009]; Matter of Reilly v Reilly, 64 AD3d 660, 660 [2009]; Matter of Rodriguez v Hangartner, 59 AD3d 630, 630-631 [2009]). Here, the father failed to allege a sufficient change in circumstances between the issuance of a custody order by the Family Court on May 8, 2009, and the filing of his petition. Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition without a hearing (see Matter of Collazo v Collazo, 78 AD3d 1177 [2010]; Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14 AD3d 572 [2005]).

Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 926, 996 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-castagnini-v-hyman-hunt-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack