Vasquez-Williams v. Williams

32 A.D.3d 859, 821 N.Y.S.2d 226
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 12, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 859 (Vasquez-Williams v. Williams) 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
Vasquez-Williams v. Williams, 32 A.D.3d 859, 821 N.Y.S.2d 226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (MacKenzie, J.), dated August 24, 2005, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother’s petition to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and awarded her sole custody of the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A parent seeking a change in custody must make an initial [860]*860evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see McNally v McNally, 28 AD3d 526 [2006]; Smoczkiewicz v Smoczkiewicz, 2 AD3d 705 [2003]; Corigliano v Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328, 329 [2002]; Teuschler v Teuschler, 242 AD2d 289 [1997]). Contrary to the father’s contention, the mother’s allegations that he imposed excessive and inappropriate discipline on the subject children, including corporal punishment, was sufficient to warrant a hearing.

“A change of custody should be made only if the totality of the circumstances warrants a modification” (Corigliano v Corigliano, supra at 329; see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95-96 [1982]). On this record, we discern no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination, made after a hearing and in camera interviews with the subject children (see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 272 [1969]), that it was in their best interests to award custody to the mother (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, supra at 93-95).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

ISLER, KATHLEEN G. v. JOHNSON, VICTOR C.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Isler v. Johnson
118 A.D.3d 1504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Skeete v. Hamilton
78 A.D.3d 1187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Reilly v. Reilly
64 A.D.3d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Arcabascio v. Arcabascio
48 A.D.3d 606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Davis v. Venditto
45 A.D.3d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A.D.3d 859, 821 N.Y.S.2d 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-williams-v-williams-nyappdiv-2006.