Simpson v. Ptaszynska

49 A.D.3d 657, 852 N.Y.2d 802

This text of 49 A.D.3d 657 (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, 49 A.D.3d 657, 852 N.Y.2d 802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.3d 657, 852 N.Y.2d 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-ptaszynska-nyappdiv-2008.