Morillo v. Nunez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morillo v. Nunez

91 A.D.3d 875, 936 N.Y.2d 910

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 875 (Morillo v. Nunez) 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

Morillo v. Nunez, 91 A.D.3d 875, 936 N.Y.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[876]*876The Family Court did not err in denying the father’s petition to modify a prior custody order dated August 31, 2009, so as to award him sole custody of the parties’ child. “A modification of an existing custody arrangement should be allowed only upon a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change of custody in order to insure the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186 [2011]; see Family Ct Act § 652 [a]; Matter of Catalano v Catalano, 66 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2009]). Here, the father’s testimony did not establish a sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order (see generally Matter of Catalano v Catalano, 66 AD3d at 1013; Matter of Jennings v Small, 59 AD3d 546 [2009]). Dillon, J.E, Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

[876]*876The Family Court did not err in denying the father’s petition to modify a prior custody order dated August 31, 2009, so as to award him sole custody of the parties’ child. “A modification of an existing custody arrangement should be allowed only upon a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change of custody in order to insure the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186 [2011]; see Family Ct Act § 652 [a]; Matter of Catalano v Catalano, 66 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2009]). Here, the father’s testimony did not establish a sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order (see generally Matter of Catalano v Catalano, 66 AD3d at 1013; Matter of Jennings v Small, 59 AD3d 546 [2009]). Dillon, J.E, Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 875, 936 N.Y.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morillo-v-nunez-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack