Matter of Jose M.C. v. Liliana C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Jose M.C. v. Liliana C.

2017 NY Slip Op 3906, 150 A.D.3d 514, 55 N.Y.S.3d 21

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

DecidedMay 16, 2017

Docket4029

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3906 (Matter of Jose M.C. v. Liliana C.) 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 Jose M.C. v. Liliana C., 2017 NY Slip Op 3906, 150 A.D.3d 514, 55 N.Y.S.3d 21 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol Goldstein, J.), entered on or about April 15, 2016, which dismissed the father’s petition to modify a final visitation order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The father has failed to establish that there has been a change of circumstances such that a modification would be in the child’s best interests (Matter of Luis F. v Dayhana D., 109 AD3d 731 [1st Dept 2013]). While the father maintains that he has relocated to New York, the trial court’s finding to the contrary is entitled to deference. Regardless, the father does not have a residence of his own in Manhattan but sleeps on his mother’s couch. The father has also failed to show that expanding visits would be in the child’s best interests. The trial court found that the child’s needs were being well met in the mother’s primary care and that the change proposed by the father would virtually eliminate all of the mother’s leisure time with the

*515 child. Moreover, the child herself, who was 13 at the time of the hearing, does not wish to see the father more frequently (see Matter of Liliana C. v Jose M.C., 128 AD3d 496 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol Goldstein, J.), entered on or about April 15, 2016, which dismissed the father’s petition to modify a final visitation order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The father has failed to establish that there has been a change of circumstances such that a modification would be in the child’s best interests (Matter of Luis F. v Dayhana D., 109 AD3d 731 [1st Dept 2013]). While the father maintains that he has relocated to New York, the trial court’s finding to the contrary is entitled to deference. Regardless, the father does not have a residence of his own in Manhattan but sleeps on his mother’s couch. The father has also failed to show that expanding visits would be in the child’s best interests. The trial court found that the child’s needs were being well met in the mother’s primary care and that the change proposed by the father would virtually eliminate all of the mother’s leisure time with the

*515 child. Moreover, the child herself, who was 13 at the time of the hearing, does not wish to see the father more frequently (see Matter of Liliana C. v Jose M.C., 128 AD3d 496 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3906, 150 A.D.3d 514, 55 N.Y.S.3d 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jose-mc-v-liliana-c-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack