From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sipos v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 15, 1978
66 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Opinion

December 15, 1978

Appeal from the Erie Supreme Court.

Present — Cardamone, J.P., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.


Amended order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The trial court hearing a contempt proceeding regarding custody, without notice to appellant or appellant's counsel, modified by reducing the appellant father's visitation privileges. Recognizing the broad discretionary power the courts possess in custody matters (Domestic Relations Law, § 240; CPLR 3017, subd [a]), it is nevertheless plainly improper for a trial court to take action and grant relief without the matter being properly before it or without appropriate notice to one of the parties affected. The statute itself provides that upon an application the court may modify a previous direction with respect to the right to visitation "after such notice to the other party * * * and given in such manner as the court shall direct" (Domestic Relations Law, § 240). We agree with appellant's contention that informal notice during the course of the proceeding that undemanded relief would be granted does not constitute adequate notice and prejudices him (Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR 3017:6, p 115). Consequently, that part of the order appealed from may not stand. Respondent may be able to demonstrate that the appellant's right to visitation should be modified. However, such an application, should respondent be so advised, must be upon appropriate notice to appellant.


Summaries of

Sipos v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 15, 1978
66 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)
Case details for

Sipos v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:PAUL R. SIPOS, Appellant, v. SHEILA H. KELLY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Dec 15, 1978

Citations

66 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

Ross v. Ross

In this case the husband, who the court found wrongfully abandoned the plaintiff, wished to remarry and it is…

Palek v. Spatuzzi

Neither the petition nor the answer requested the latter declaration or contained an allegation that…