Timson v. Timson

5 A.D.3d 691, 774 N.Y.S.2d 751
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 22, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 691 (Timson v. Timson) 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
Timson v. Timson, 5 A.D.3d 691, 774 N.Y.S.2d 751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 240, the father appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated March 5, 2003, which, inter alia, denied, without a hearing, his petition, in effect, for unsupervised visitation with the parties’ child, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court dated June 26, 2003, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 5, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated June 26, 2003, made upon reargument; and it is further,

[692]*692Ordered that the order dated June 26, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the mother.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, his petition, in effect, for unsupervised visitation with his child. One who seeks to modify an existing order of visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant it (see Matter of Goldberg v Goldberg, 300 AD2d 585 [2002]; Matter of Gerow v Gerow, 257 AD2d 718 [1999]). Here, the father failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate a change of circumstances which would warrant unsupervised rather than supervised visitation.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)
2016 NY Slip Op 8114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Fitje v. Fitje
87 A.D.3d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Ronald S. v. Deirdre R.
62 A.D.3d 593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Mennuti v. Berry
59 A.D.3d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
State ex rel. Barbara D. v. Francis D.
58 A.D.3d 436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Potente v. Wasilewski
51 A.D.3d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Gold v. Gold
47 A.D.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Hongach v. Hongach
44 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Richard R.G. v. Rebecca H.
34 A.D.3d 1312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Norman v. Dykman
23 A.D.3d 358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Matter of J.R.W. v. L.F.W.
2005 NY Slip Op 50612(U) (Nassau Family Court, 2005)
Walberg v. Rudden
14 A.D.3d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Steinharter v. Steinharter
11 A.D.3d 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 691, 774 N.Y.S.2d 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timson-v-timson-nyappdiv-2004.