Matter of Quezada v. Long

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Quezada v. Long

126 A.D.3d 907, 2 N.Y.S.3d 921

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2015

Docket2014-04450

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 907 (Matter of Quezada v. Long) 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 Quezada v. Long, 126 A.D.3d 907, 2 N.Y.S.3d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.), dated April 11, 2014. The order, after a hearing, in effect, denied the mother’s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation so as to award her sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.

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

The Family Court did not err in declining to modify a prior court-sanctioned custody agreement so as to award the mother sole legal and physical custody of the subject child. The mother failed to show that there was a change in circumstances such that modification was necessary to ensure the continued best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Estevez v Perez, 123 AD3d 707, 708 [2014]; Matter of Mack v Kass, 115 AD3d 748, 748-749 [2014]; Matter of Vasquez v Ortiz, 77 AD3d 962 [2010]).

Although the parties have an acrimonious relationship and their communication with each other is limited, the record does not show that the parties’ antagonism prevented them from setting aside their differences to facilitate decision-making and to cooperate on matters in the best interests of the child (cf Matter of Florio v Niven, 123 AD3d 708 [2014]; Matter of Edwards v Rothschild, 60 AD3d 675 [2009]).

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Miller, 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, Rockland County (Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.), dated April 11, 2014. The order, after a hearing, in effect, denied the mother’s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation so as to award her sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.

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

The Family Court did not err in declining to modify a prior court-sanctioned custody agreement so as to award the mother sole legal and physical custody of the subject child. The mother failed to show that there was a change in circumstances such that modification was necessary to ensure the continued best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Estevez v Perez, 123 AD3d 707, 708 [2014]; Matter of Mack v Kass, 115 AD3d 748, 748-749 [2014]; Matter of Vasquez v Ortiz, 77 AD3d 962 [2010]).

Although the parties have an acrimonious relationship and their communication with each other is limited, the record does not show that the parties’ antagonism prevented them from setting aside their differences to facilitate decision-making and to cooperate on matters in the best interests of the child (cf Matter of Florio v Niven, 123 AD3d 708 [2014]; Matter of Edwards v Rothschild, 60 AD3d 675 [2009]).

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 907, 2 N.Y.S.3d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-quezada-v-long-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack