From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gabriel S. v. Alphonso S.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 13, 2012
100 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-11-13

In re Keisha GABRIEL S., Petitioner–Respondent, v. ALPHONSO S., Respondent–Appellant. In re Keisha Gabriel S., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Alphonso S., Defendant–Appellant.

Lisa H. Blitman, New York, for appellant. White & Case LLP, New York (Michael DeSimone of counsel), for respondent.


Lisa H. Blitman, New York, for appellant. White & Case LLP, New York (Michael DeSimone of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about November 12, 2009, which granted petitioner Keisha Gabriel S. a five-year order of protection against respondent Alphonso S. and order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (La Tia W. Martin, J.), entered on or about November 17, 2010, which denied respondent Alphonse S.'s application seeking modification of his access/visitation schedule with the parties' two children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent's participation in the hearing via telephone did not deprive him of his due process rights ( see Matter of Paul Antoine Devantae R. [Paul R.], 78 A.D.3d 610, 611, 912 N.Y.S.2d 191 [1st Dept. 2010], lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 707, 920 N.Y.S.2d 781, 945 N.E.2d 1032 [2011] ), and there is no reason to disturb the hearing court's credibility determination ( see Everett C. v. Oneida P., 61 A.D.3d 489, 878 N.Y.S.2d 301 [1st Dept. 2009] ). The court's decision was appropriate given that respondent is incarcerated and did not request to be produced for the hearing. With regard to respondent's Supreme Court application to modify the visitation stipulation to include in-person visitation with the parties children at the correctional facility where he is incarcerated, the court properly found that respondent failed to present any evidence that there has been a change in circumstances to warrant such a modification, or that in-person visitation is in the best interests of the children ( see Matter of Santiago v. Halbal, 88 A.D.3d 616, 617, 932 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2011] ).

We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

GONZALEZ, P.J., SAXE, CATTERSON, ACOSTA, GISCHE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gabriel S. v. Alphonso S.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 13, 2012
100 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Gabriel S. v. Alphonso S.

Case Details

Full title:In re Keisha GABRIEL S., Petitioner–Respondent, v. ALPHONSO S.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 13, 2012

Citations

100 A.D.3d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
953 N.Y.S.2d 498
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7566

Citing Cases

PBC v. Landow

Petitioners demonstrated that "absent the attachment being requested, the ultimate arbitration award would be…

Keisha Gabriel S. v. Alphonso S.

In the Matter of KEISHA GABRIEL S., Respondent, v. ALPHONSO S., Appellant. (And Another Proceeding.).Reported…