Riedel v. Riedel

61 A.D.3d 979, 876 N.Y.S.2d 907
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 28, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 979 (Riedel v. Riedel) 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
Riedel v. Riedel, 61 A.D.3d 979, 876 N.Y.S.2d 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law articles 5 and 5-A to modify the visitation provisions of a judgment of divorce entered in the State of Florida, the mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated March 17, 2008, which, without a hearing, denied her petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, her petition to modify the visitation provisions of the Florida judgment of divorce. “Modification of an existing custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child” (Matter of Molinari v Tuthill, 59 AD3d 722, 723 [2009]; see Matter of Shockome v Shockome, 53 AD3d 618, 619 [2008]). A person seeking a change in visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Rodriguez v Hangartner, 59 AD3d 630 [2009]; Matter of Mennuti v Berry, 59 AD3d 625 [2009]; Matter of Hermanowski v Hermanowski, 57 AD3d 777, 778 [2008]). Here, the mother failed to make an evidentiary showing of a subsequent change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Kates v. Simpson
2020 NY Slip Op 1345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Stones v. VanDenberge
2018 NY Slip Op 8664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Li Wong v. Fen Liu
2018 NY Slip Op 1607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Acworth v. Kollmar
119 A.D.3d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Kollmar v. Kollmar
100 A.D.3d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Sirabella v. Sirabella
95 A.D.3d 1296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Chery v. Richardson
88 A.D.3d 788 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Figueroa v. Lewis
81 A.D.3d 823 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Deochand v. Deochand
80 A.D.3d 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Mazurkiewicz v. Pindor-Mazurkiewicz
80 A.D.3d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Skeete v. Hamilton
78 A.D.3d 1187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Arroyo v. Agosta
78 A.D.3d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Mazzola v. Lee
76 A.D.2d 531 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Leichter-Kessler v. Kessler
71 A.D.3d 1148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Quinones v. Ibarrondo
67 A.D.3d 686 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Grant v. Hunter
64 A.D.3d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 A.D.3d 979, 876 N.Y.S.2d 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riedel-v-riedel-nyappdiv-2009.