Simpson v. Ptaszynska

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simpson v. Ptaszynska

41 A.D.3d 608, 836 N.Y.S.2d 419

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

DecidedJune 12, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 608 (Simpson v. Ptaszynska) 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

Simpson v. Ptaszynska, 41 A.D.3d 608, 836 N.Y.S.2d 419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Shea, J.), dated September 13, 2005, as denied that branch of the father’s motion which was, in effect, for permission to file a petition to modify so much of a prior order of custody and visitation as set forth a weekly visitation schedule for him and denied his separate motion, inter alia, in effect, for permission to file a petition to modify so much of a prior order of custody and visitation as awarded custody of the parties’ child to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied those branches of the father’s motions which were for permission to file a petition to modify so much of a prior order of custody and visitation as set forth a weekly visitation schedule for the father and awarded custody of the parties’ child to the mother, as the father failed to demonstrate nonfrivolous grounds for such relief.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Shea, J.), dated September 13, 2005, as denied that branch of the father’s motion which was, in effect, for permission to file a petition to modify so much of a prior order of custody and visitation as set forth a weekly visitation schedule for him and denied his separate motion, inter alia, in effect, for permission to file a petition to modify so much of a prior order of custody and visitation as awarded custody of the parties’ child to the mother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied those branches of the father’s motions which were for permission to file a petition to modify so much of a prior order of custody and visitation as set forth a weekly visitation schedule for the father and awarded custody of the parties’ child to the mother, as the father failed to demonstrate nonfrivolous grounds for such relief.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 608, 836 N.Y.S.2d 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-ptaszynska-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack