Zelodius C. v. Danny L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zelodius C. v. Danny L.

39 A.D.3d 320, 833 N.Y.S.2d 470

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 2007·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.), entered on or about February 8, 2006, which granted petitioner mother visitation during all school vacations, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the matter remanded for a custody hearing, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Liberally construing the allegations of the pro se petition, we find that they set forth sufficient facts which, if established at an evidentiary hearing, could afford a basis for the relief sought, viz., a change in custody (see Matter of Williams v Mullineaux, 271 AD2d 869 [2000]). For example, the petition alleged that respondent father was preventing the parties’ child from seeing petitioner (see e.g. Vernon v Vernon, 296 AD2d 186, 192 [2002], affd 100 NY2d 960 [2003]; Matter of Michael C., 282 AD2d 407 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 722 [2001]). In addition, during the course of the proceedings, petitioner discovered that respondent had moved to Troy (three hours away) without advance notice, taking the child with him (see Matter of Hanson v Hanson, 283 AD2d 677, 678 [2001]; Matter of Markey v Bederian, 274 AD2d 816, 817 [2000]).

We note finally that respondent has not appeared in opposition to this appeal (see Matter of Martin R.G. v Ofelia G.O., 24 AD3d 305 [2005]; Matter of Clifford M., 280 AD2d 366 [2001]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.), entered on or about February 8, 2006, which granted petitioner mother visitation during all school vacations, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the matter remanded for a custody hearing, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Liberally construing the allegations of the pro se petition, we find that they set forth sufficient facts which, if established at an evidentiary hearing, could afford a basis for the relief sought, viz., a change in custody (see Matter of Williams v Mullineaux, 271 AD2d 869 [2000]). For example, the petition alleged that respondent father was preventing the parties’ child from seeing petitioner (see e.g. Vernon v Vernon, 296 AD2d 186, 192 [2002], affd 100 NY2d 960 [2003]; Matter of Michael C., 282 AD2d 407 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 722 [2001]). In addition, during the course of the proceedings, petitioner discovered that respondent had moved to Troy (three hours away) without advance notice, taking the child with him (see Matter of Hanson v Hanson, 283 AD2d 677, 678 [2001]; Matter of Markey v Bederian, 274 AD2d 816, 817 [2000]).

We note finally that respondent has not appeared in opposition to this appeal (see Matter of Martin R.G. v Ofelia G.O., 24 AD3d 305 [2005]; Matter of Clifford M., 280 AD2d 366 [2001]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

Zelodius C. v. Danny L., 39 A.D.3d 320, 833 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

39 A.D.3d 320 (Zelodius C. v. Danny L.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related