Sipos v. Kelly

66 A.D.2d 1022, 411 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14396
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 66 A.D.2d 1022 (Sipos v. Kelly) 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
Sipos v. Kelly, 66 A.D.2d 1022, 411 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

Amended order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The trial court hearing a contempt proceeding regarding custody, without notice to appellant or appellant’s counsel, modified by reducing the appellant father’s visitation privileges. Recognizing the broad discretionary power the courts possess in custody matters (Domestic Relations Law, § 240; CPLR 3017, subd [a]), it is nevertheless plainly improper for a trial court to take action and grant relief without the matter being properly before it or without appropriate notice to one of the parties affected. The statute itself provides that upon an application the court may modify a previous direction with respect to the right to visitation "after such notice to the other party * * * and given in such manner as the court shall direct” (Domestic Relations Law, § 240). We agree with appellant’s contention that informal [1023]*1023notice during the course of the proceeding that undemanded relief would be granted does not constitute adequate notice and prejudices him (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 3017:6, p 115). Consequently, that part of the order appealed from may not stand. Respondent may be able to demonstrate that the appellant’s right to visitation should be modified. However, such an application, should respondent be so advised, must be upon appropriate notice to appellant. (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—contempt.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.

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

Related

Heintz v. Heintz
28 A.D.3d 1154 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Gray v. Chambers
206 A.D.2d 619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Palek v. Spatuzzi
139 A.D.2d 968 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Nutkiewicz v. Nutkiewicz
123 A.D.2d 378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Ira K. v. Frances K.
115 A.D.2d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Ross v. Ross
84 A.D.2d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Frank v. Krauss
69 A.D.2d 1017 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 A.D.2d 1022, 411 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sipos-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1978.