Palacz v. Palacz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Palacz v. Palacz

249 A.D.2d 930, 672 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5020

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 930 (Palacz v. Palacz) 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

Palacz v. Palacz, 249 A.D.2d 930, 672 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5020 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not err in dismissing the petition alleging that Richard Palacz (respondent) violated the visitation provisions of a prior order by his conduct on January 7, 1997. Under the circumstances, no hearing was required (see, Bowie v Bowie, 182 AD2d 1049, 1050). We agree with the court’s conclusion that the single alleged violation apparently arising from a conflict between the visitation schedule and the child’s academic needs, if established, would be too insubstantial to support the conclusion that respondent “defeated, impaired, impeded, or preju-

[931]*931diced” petitioner’s visitation rights (Judiciary Law § 753 [A]) and thus would not warrant the imposition of sanctions. The court’s admonition to respondent was sufficient in this instance. (Appeal from Order of Livingston County Family Court, Cicoria, J. — Visitation.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not err in dismissing the petition alleging that Richard Palacz (respondent) violated the visitation provisions of a prior order by his conduct on January 7, 1997. Under the circumstances, no hearing was required (see, Bowie v Bowie, 182 AD2d 1049, 1050). We agree with the court’s conclusion that the single alleged violation apparently arising from a conflict between the visitation schedule and the child’s academic needs, if established, would be too insubstantial to support the conclusion that respondent “defeated, impaired, impeded, or preju-

[931]*931diced” petitioner’s visitation rights (Judiciary Law § 753 [A]) and thus would not warrant the imposition of sanctions. The court’s admonition to respondent was sufficient in this instance. (Appeal from Order of Livingston County Family Court, Cicoria, J. — Visitation.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 930, 672 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palacz-v-palacz-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack