Matter of Steven E. v. Angella E.

2020 NY Slip Op 3086, 122 N.Y.S.3d 889, 183 A.D.3d 546
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 28, 2020
Docket11581 V-42316-11/17C
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 3086 (Matter of Steven E. v. Angella E.) 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 Steven E. v. Angella E., 2020 NY Slip Op 3086, 122 N.Y.S.3d 889, 183 A.D.3d 546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Matter of Steven E. v Angella E. (2020 NY Slip Op 03086)
Matter of Steven E. v Angella E.
2020 NY Slip Op 03086
Decided on May 28, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on May 28, 2020
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Singh, Moulton, JJ.

11581 V-42316-11/17C

[*1]In re Steven E., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Angella E., Respondent-Respondent.


Steven E., appellant pro se.

Cohen & Gresser, LLP, New York (Harvey B. Silikovitz of counsel), for respondent.

Karen Freeman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.



Order, Family Court, New York County (J. Machelle Sweeting, J.), entered on or about February 21, 2019, which granted respondent-mother's motion to dismiss the father's petition to modify a custody/visitation order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the petition seeking modification of the custody/visitation order without a hearing since the father did not credibly allege a material change of circumstances (see Skidelsky v Skidelsky, 279 AD2d 356 [1st Dept 2001]). The court acted within its discretion in finding that the claimed changed circumstances were no different than the circumstances that existed at the time of the original order. Moreover, the father did not demonstrate that providing him with custody of or visitation with the daughter would be in her best interests (see St. Clement v Casale, 29 AD3d 367, 368 [1st Dept 2006]).

The remainder of the father's arguments are unpreserved (Matter of Christian E., 66 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2009]) and are otherwise unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 28, 2020

CLERK



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

Related

Matter of Peter K. v. Mayumi M.
2025 NY Slip Op 05883 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Johnson v. Watson
158 N.Y.S.3d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 3086, 122 N.Y.S.3d 889, 183 A.D.3d 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-steven-e-v-angella-e-nyappdiv-2020.