Vistocci v. Seebeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vistocci v. Seebeck

244 A.D.2d 414, 665 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11215

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 414 (Vistocci v. Seebeck) 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

Vistocci v. Seebeck, 244 A.D.2d 414, 665 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated April 26, 1994, which denied her petition to modify a prior order of the same court dated February 17, 1993, to direct that a party other than the father supervise her visitation with the parties’ son at a location other than the father’s home.

[415]*415Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother did not allege any reason to justify a reconsideration of the visitation order dated February 17, 1993, entered upon consent of the parties, inasmuch as no material change in circumstances was presented (see, Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Matter of Induddi v Moore, 214 AD2d 616). The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated April 26, 1994, which denied her petition to modify a prior order of the same court dated February 17, 1993, to direct that a party other than the father supervise her visitation with the parties’ son at a location other than the father’s home.

[415]*415Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother did not allege any reason to justify a reconsideration of the visitation order dated February 17, 1993, entered upon consent of the parties, inasmuch as no material change in circumstances was presented (see, Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Matter of Induddi v Moore, 214 AD2d 616). The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 414, 665 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vistocci-v-seebeck-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack