Nash v. Yablon-Nash

16 A.D.3d 471, 790 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 14, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 471 (Nash v. Yablon-Nash) 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
Nash v. Yablon-Nash, 16 A.D.3d 471, 790 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered March 20, 1996, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), dated April 23, 2004, which, without a hearing, denied his motion, inter alia, to modify a prior order of visitation so as to provide expanded and unsupervised visitation with the parties’ children and to impose a sanction upon the defendant for violating prior orders of visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly, without a hearing, denied his motion, inter alia, to modify a prior order of visitation so as to provide expanded and unsupervised visitation with the parties’ children, since he failed to make a prima facie showing of a change in circumstances (see Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11 AD3d 471 [2004]; Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487 [2004]). The plaintiff’s conclusory and unsubstantiated statements fell “far short of the evidentiary showing required to trigger a hearing on this issue” (Matter of Gerow v Gerow, 257 AD2d 718, 719 [1999]).

The Supreme Court’s reminder to the defendant to abide by her visitation obligations was an appropriate remedy for her alleged violation of prior orders of visitation by cancelling and rescheduling visitation with the plaintiff (see Matter of Pignataro v Davis, supra). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Newton v. McFarlane
2019 NY Slip Op 4386 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Sirabella v. Sirabella
95 A.D.3d 1296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Grant v. Hunter
64 A.D.3d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rodriguez v. Hangartner
59 A.D.3d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Milone v. Milone
51 A.D.3d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Gold v. Gold
47 A.D.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Danvers v. Clarke
29 A.D.3d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Norman v. Dykman
23 A.D.3d 358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 471, 790 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nash-v-yablon-nash-nyappdiv-2005.