Rawlins v. Finocchiaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rawlins v. Finocchiaro

50 A.D.3d 1594, 855 N.Y.S.2d 404

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 25, 2008·Published

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Thomas W Polito, R.), entered September 7, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, modified the parties’ existing joint custody arrangement.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order modifying the parties’ existing joint custody arrangement by, inter alia, increasing the visitation of petitioner father, respondent mother contends that Family Court was biased against her (see generally Labanowski v Labanowski, 4 AD3d 690, 696 [2004]). The record does not support that contention. “Pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, ‘[mjodification of custody determinations requires a full and comprehensive hearing’ ” (Matter of Stukes v Ryan, 289 AD2d 623, 624 [2001]; see generally Matter of Zupo v Edwards, 161 AD2d 972 [1990]). We conclude that such a hearing was conducted herein, and that the order is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Green v Mitchell, 266 AD2d 884 [1999]). We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Thomas W Polito, R.), entered September 7, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, modified the parties’ existing joint custody arrangement.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order modifying the parties’ existing joint custody arrangement by, inter alia, increasing the visitation of petitioner father, respondent mother contends that Family Court was biased against her (see generally Labanowski v Labanowski, 4 AD3d 690, 696 [2004]). The record does not support that contention. “Pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, ‘[mjodification of custody determinations requires a full and comprehensive hearing’ ” (Matter of Stukes v Ryan, 289 AD2d 623, 624 [2001]; see generally Matter of Zupo v Edwards, 161 AD2d 972 [1990]). We conclude that such a hearing was conducted herein, and that the order is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Green v Mitchell, 266 AD2d 884 [1999]). We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Rawlins v. Finocchiaro, 50 A.D.3d 1594, 855 N.Y.S.2d 404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

50 A.D.3d 1594 (Rawlins v. Finocchiaro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related