Zima v. Aguirre-Cotliar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zima v. Aguirre-Cotliar

21 A.D.3d 828, 800 N.Y.S.2d 845

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 828 (Zima v. Aguirre-Cotliar) 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

Zima v. Aguirre-Cotliar, 21 A.D.3d 828, 800 N.Y.S.2d 845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered September 28, 2004, which denied defendant’s application for a change in custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant fails to allege sufficient evidentiary facts to warrant a hearing based on a change in circumstances (see David W. v Julia W., 158 AD2d 1, 6-7 [1990]). The initial custody determination, made after a lengthy bench trial before the same Justice, was amply supported by the evidence, including the testimony of the neutral court-appointed forensic evaluator (see Pedreira v Pedreira, 17 AD3d 213 [2005]), and nothing in defendant’s moving affidavit tends to show that plaintiff has since become unfit or even less fit to continue as the custodial parent (see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 770 [1975]; DeArakie v DeArakie, 191 AD2d 217 [1993], Iv dismissed 82 NY2d 802 [1993]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered September 28, 2004, which denied defendant’s application for a change in custody, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant fails to allege sufficient evidentiary facts to warrant a hearing based on a change in circumstances (see David W. v Julia W., 158 AD2d 1, 6-7 [1990]). The initial custody determination, made after a lengthy bench trial before the same Justice, was amply supported by the evidence, including the testimony of the neutral court-appointed forensic evaluator (see Pedreira v Pedreira, 17 AD3d 213 [2005]), and nothing in defendant’s moving affidavit tends to show that plaintiff has since become unfit or even less fit to continue as the custodial parent (see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 770 [1975]; DeArakie v DeArakie, 191 AD2d 217 [1993], Iv dismissed 82 NY2d 802 [1993]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 828, 800 N.Y.S.2d 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zima-v-aguirre-cotliar-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack