From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hom v. Hom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 2000
270 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted February 1, 2000

March 23, 2000

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered April 13, 1992, the father appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), dated July 28, 1998, as denied his motion for custody of the parties' children, to adjudicate the mother in contempt, and to compel her to enter arbitration, and (2) an order of the same court dated October 16, 1998, which denied his motion for reargument.

George Hom, Westbury, N.Y., appellant pro se.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated October 16, 1998, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated July 28, 1998, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, there is no indication that a change in custody will substantially enhance the child's welfare, and the custodial parent is not shown to be unfit or less fit to continue as the custodian, the custody arrangement in place should not be disturbed (see, Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768, 770 ; Muzzi v. Muzzi, 189 A.D.2d 1022 ). Contrary to the father's contention, he failed to provide any evidence that there was "a change in circumstances" warranting a hearing on the issue of custody (see, Matter of Ann C. v. Debra S., 221 A.D.2d 338 ; Lenczycki v. Alexander, 209 A.D.2d 480, 481 ). Further, disputes between former spouses over child custody and visitation are not subject to arbitration (see, Lipsius v. Lipsius, 250 A.D.2d 820 ; Cohen v. Cohen, 195 A.D.2d 586 ; Glauber v. Glauber, 192 A.D.2d 64,[ 192 A.D.2d 94]).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, THOMPSON, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hom v. Hom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 2000
270 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Hom v. Hom

Case Details

Full title:JANE HOM, respondent, v. GEORGE HOM, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 23, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 885

Citing Cases

Rochel H. v. Joel H.

Apparently prior to the litigation the parties sought intervention from religious tribunal on the issues of…

Rochel H. v. Joel H.

Apparently prior to the litigation the parties sought intervention from religious tribunal on the issues of…