Simpson v. Ptaszynska

49 A.D.3d 657, 852 N.Y.2d 802
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Simpson v. Ptaszynska. Read the opinion of the Court — 41 A.D.3d 607

Opinion

The Family Court properly denied that branch of the father’s motion which was, in effect, for permission to file a petition for a change of custody since the father failed to demonstrate nonfrivolous grounds for such relief (see Matter of Simpson v Ptaszynska, 41 AD3d 608 [2007]).

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court was not required to hold a hearing regarding visitation where he did not request a hearing, and the court had sufficient information to enable it to determine the best interests of the subject child (see Matter of Razo v Leyva, 3 AD3d 571 [2004]; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]; Matter of Goldman v Goldman, 201 AD2d 860, 862 [1994]; Kuleszo v Kuleszo, 59 AD2d 1059, 1060 [1977]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Simpson v. Ptaszynska, 49 A.D.3d 657, 852 N.Y.2d 802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

49 A.D.3d 657 (Simpson v. Ptaszynska) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Razo v. Leyva
3 A.D.3d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Simpson v. Ptaszynska
41 A.D.3d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Kuleszo v. Kuleszo
59 A.D.2d 1059 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Goldman v. Goldman
201 A.D.2d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Vangas v. Ladas
259 A.D.2d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)