Matter of Hillord v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Hillord v. Davis

123 A.D.3d 1126, 1 N.Y.S.3d 224

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2014

Docket2013-10898

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 1126 (Matter of Hillord v. Davis) 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 Hillord v. Davis, 123 A.D.3d 1126, 1 N.Y.S.3d 224 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Marilyn Shafer, J.H.O.), dated October 17, 2013. The order dismissed, without a hearing, the father’s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine whether a modification of the visitation schedule is in the best interests of the child.

The Family Court improperly dismissed the father’s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation without holding a hearing. “Modification of an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation 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 O’Shea v Parker, 116 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2014]; see Matter of Jasiah T.-V.S.J. [Joshua W.], 123 AD3d 717, 717-718 [2d Dept 2014]). “[O]ne who seeks a change in visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing” (Matter of Collazo v Collazo, 78 AD3d 1177, 1177 [2010]; see Magee v Magee, 119 AD3d 658, 659 [2014]).

Here, the father met his burden, as the modification petition alleged that, since the date when the existing visitation schedule was established, the father’s work schedule had changed and was interfering with his meaningful visitation with the child. Therefore, the order must be reversed, the petition reinstated, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine whether a modification of the visitation schedule is in the best interests of the subject child (see Matter of Jean v Washington, 71 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2010]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the father’s remaining contentions.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Duffy, 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 (Marilyn Shafer, J.H.O.), dated October 17, 2013. The order dismissed, without a hearing, the father’s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine whether a modification of the visitation schedule is in the best interests of the child.

The Family Court improperly dismissed the father’s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation without holding a hearing. “Modification of an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation 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 O’Shea v Parker, 116 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2014]; see Matter of Jasiah T.-V.S.J. [Joshua W.], 123 AD3d 717, 717-718 [2d Dept 2014]). “[O]ne who seeks a change in visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing” (Matter of Collazo v Collazo, 78 AD3d 1177, 1177 [2010]; see Magee v Magee, 119 AD3d 658, 659 [2014]).

Here, the father met his burden, as the modification petition alleged that, since the date when the existing visitation schedule was established, the father’s work schedule had changed and was interfering with his meaningful visitation with the child. Therefore, the order must be reversed, the petition reinstated, and the matter remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine whether a modification of the visitation schedule is in the best interests of the subject child (see Matter of Jean v Washington, 71 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2010]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the father’s remaining contentions.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 1126, 1 N.Y.S.3d 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-hillord-v-davis-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack