Wellington v. Riccardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wellington v. Riccardo

70 A.D.3d 1513, 892 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 1513 (Wellington v. Riccardo) 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

Wellington v. Riccardo, 70 A.D.3d 1513, 892 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County (Anthony J. Garramone, J.H.O.), entered November 20, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order granting respondent father’s motion to dismiss the petition seeking to modify certain stipulated provisions of the divorce judgment concerning visitation with the parties’ children. The mother has not raised any issues with respect to that part of the order dismissing the petition insofar as it sought termination of the father’s Wednesday visitation, and thus she is deemed to have abandoned any such issues (see Matter of Walters v Francisco, 63 AD3d 1610, 1611 [2009]; Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984 [1994]). Family Court properly granted that part of the motion to dismiss the petition insofar as it sought an order directing the father to provide all transportation for visitation. The mother failed to establish a change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation sufficient to warrant the modifica[1514]*1514tion sought (see Walters, 63 AD3d at 1611; Matter of Gridley v Syrko, 50 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2008]). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni and Green, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County (Anthony J. Garramone, J.H.O.), entered November 20, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order granting respondent father’s motion to dismiss the petition seeking to modify certain stipulated provisions of the divorce judgment concerning visitation with the parties’ children. The mother has not raised any issues with respect to that part of the order dismissing the petition insofar as it sought termination of the father’s Wednesday visitation, and thus she is deemed to have abandoned any such issues (see Matter of Walters v Francisco, 63 AD3d 1610, 1611 [2009]; Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984 [1994]). Family Court properly granted that part of the motion to dismiss the petition insofar as it sought an order directing the father to provide all transportation for visitation. The mother failed to establish a change in circumstances since the time of the stipulation sufficient to warrant the modifica[1514]*1514tion sought (see Walters, 63 AD3d at 1611; Matter of Gridley v Syrko, 50 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2008]). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 1513, 892 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wellington-v-riccardo-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack