Wolfer v. Dame

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolfer v. Dame

207 A.D.2d 898, 616 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9036

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 898 (Wolfer v. Dame) 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

Wolfer v. Dame, 207 A.D.2d 898, 616 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father [899]*899appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Pach, J.), entered May 24, 1993, as granted, without a hearing, the mother’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in dismissing his petition for a change of custody without first conducting a hearing. The father did not make a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing (see, Matter of Farmer v Dervay, 203 AD2d 795; Matter of Acevedo v Commissioner of Social Servs., 184 AD2d 219; Alessandro v Alessandro, 172 AD2d 1078; David W. v Julia W., 158 AD2d 1).

The mother’s request for an award of sanctions and attorney’s fees is denied (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father [899]*899appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Pach, J.), entered May 24, 1993, as granted, without a hearing, the mother’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court did not err in dismissing his petition for a change of custody without first conducting a hearing. The father did not make a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing (see, Matter of Farmer v Dervay, 203 AD2d 795; Matter of Acevedo v Commissioner of Social Servs., 184 AD2d 219; Alessandro v Alessandro, 172 AD2d 1078; David W. v Julia W., 158 AD2d 1).

The mother’s request for an award of sanctions and attorney’s fees is denied (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 898, 616 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfer-v-dame-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack