RICHARDSON, MARGARET J. v. LUDWIG, JILL

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

RICHARDSON, MARGARET J. v. LUDWIG, JILL

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2015

DocketCAF 14-00798

StatusPublished

This text of RICHARDSON, MARGARET J. v. LUDWIG, JILL (RICHARDSON, MARGARET J. v. LUDWIG, JILL) 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

RICHARDSON, MARGARET J. v. LUDWIG, JILL, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

418 CAF 14-00798 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MARGARET J. RICHARDSON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JILL LUDWIG, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, AND DANIEL LUDWIG, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

TRACY L. PUGLIESE, CLINTON, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ROBERT C. BALDWIN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BARNEVELD.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County (Anthony J. Garramone, J.H.O.), dated April 8, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted petitioner visitation with the subject children.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner, the maternal grandmother of the subject grandchildren, commenced this proceeding seeking visitation with them, and respondent mother appeals from an order that granted the petition, awarding the grandmother, inter alia, a minimum of six hours of visitation one weekend day per month with two of the subject grandchildren. We reject the mother’s contention that Family Court erred in concluding that the grandmother had standing to seek visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72 (1), inasmuch as the grandmother established that “conditions exist [in] which equity would see fit to intervene” (see id.; Matter of E.S. v P.D., 8 NY3d 150, 157; Matter of Hilgenberg v Hertel, 100 AD3d 1432, 1433). We also reject the mother’s contention that the court erred in granting the petition. We conclude that the record supports the court’s determination, which was based in part upon the credibility of the witnesses (see generally Hilgenberg, 100 AD3d at 1434), that visitation is in the best interests of those subject grandchildren (see Matter of Morgan v Grzesik, 287 AD2d 150, 156; cf. Hilgenberg, 100 AD3d at 1434-1435).

Entered: March 27, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

418 CAF 14-00798 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MARGARET J. RICHARDSON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JILL LUDWIG, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, AND DANIEL LUDWIG, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

TRACY L. PUGLIESE, CLINTON, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ROBERT C. BALDWIN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BARNEVELD.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County (Anthony J. Garramone, J.H.O.), dated April 8, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted petitioner visitation with the subject children.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner, the maternal grandmother of the subject grandchildren, commenced this proceeding seeking visitation with them, and respondent mother appeals from an order that granted the petition, awarding the grandmother, inter alia, a minimum of six hours of visitation one weekend day per month with two of the subject grandchildren. We reject the mother’s contention that Family Court erred in concluding that the grandmother had standing to seek visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72 (1), inasmuch as the grandmother established that “conditions exist [in] which equity would see fit to intervene” (see id.; Matter of E.S. v P.D., 8 NY3d 150, 157; Matter of Hilgenberg v Hertel, 100 AD3d 1432, 1433). We also reject the mother’s contention that the court erred in granting the petition. We conclude that the record supports the court’s determination, which was based in part upon the credibility of the witnesses (see generally Hilgenberg, 100 AD3d at 1434), that visitation is in the best interests of those subject grandchildren (see Matter of Morgan v Grzesik, 287 AD2d 150, 156; cf. Hilgenberg, 100 AD3d at 1434-1435).

Entered: March 27, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

RICHARDSON, MARGARET J. v. LUDWIG, JILL, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-margaret-j-v-ludwig-jill-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack