From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dysko v. Dysko

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 15, 2023
213 A.D.3d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

2021–09428 Docket Nos. V–99–20, V–100–20

02-15-2023

In the Matter of Artur DYSKO, appellant, v. Malgorzata DYSKO, respondent.

Heath J. Goldstein, Jamaica, NY, for appellant. Rhea G. Friedman, New York, NY, for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, NY (Eva D. Stein and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the children.


Heath J. Goldstein, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.

Rhea G. Friedman, New York, NY, for respondent.

Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, NY (Eva D. Stein and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the children.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Esther M. Morgenstern, J.), dated November 4, 2021. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children without prejudice.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties have two children together. On December 19, 2019, the father filed a petition for sole legal and physical custody of the children. During court conferences on July 13, 2021, and October 14, 2021, the Supreme Court directed the father to enroll in alcohol treatment. The father failed to comply with the court's orders. On November 4, 2021, on the record, the court directed the dismissal of the father's petition without prejudice, stating that the father could refile a custody petition when he was ready to cooperate with the court's directives. In an order dated November 4, 2021, the court dismissed the father's petition without prejudice. The father appeals.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the father's petition, without prejudice to him refiling a petition for custody of the parties’ children when he was prepared to cooperate with the court's directives. Under the circumstances of this case, the father's noncompliance with the court's directives prevented the matter from proceeding to a best interests hearing (see Matter of Jones v. Rodriguez, 209 A.D.3d 651, 652, 174 N.Y.S.3d 874 ; Matter of Cardona v. McNeill, 199 A.D.3d 1002, 1003, 154 N.Y.S.3d 817 ).

The remaining contentions of the parties and the attorney for the children are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., RIVERA, MALTESE and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Dysko v. Dysko

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 15, 2023
213 A.D.3d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

Dysko v. Dysko

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Artur Dysko, appellant, v. Malgorzata Dysko, respondent.

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 15, 2023

Citations

213 A.D.3d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
183 N.Y.S.3d 156
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 864