From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldberg v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2002
300 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1999-04276 and 1999-04277

October 29, 2002.

December 23, 2002.

In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.), both dated April 15, 1999 (one as to each child), which, without a hearing, granted him only supervised visitation with the parties' children.

Marva Prescod, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Benjamin C. Rosenberg, Valley Stream, N.Y., for respondent.

Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), Law Guardian for the children.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order concerning the parties' son Jason is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order concerning the parties' son Justin is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties' son Jason, having attained the age of majority, can no longer be the subject of a custody order (see Domestic Relations Law § 2; Belsky v. Belsky, 172 A.D.2d 576). Therefore, the issues raised on the appeal from the order concerning him are academic (see Reich v. Reich, 149 A.D.2d 676).

Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly denied, without a hearing, his request for unsupervised visitation with his child Justin (see Matter of Chaya S. v. Frederick Herbert L., 266 A.D.2d 219; Matter of Coutsoukis v. Samora, 265 A.D.2d 482; Matter of Gerow v. Gerow, 257 A.D.2d 718). One who seeks to modify an existing order of visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Coutsoukis v. Samora, supra; Matter of Gerow v. Gerow, supra). Here, the father failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate a change of circumstances which would warrant him receiving unsupervised rather that supervised visitation.

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

PRUDENTI, P.J., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Goldberg v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2002
300 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Goldberg v. Goldberg

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ALAN GOLDBERG, appellant, v. CAROL GOLDBERG, respondent

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

Date published: Dec 23, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 775

Citing Cases

Simpson v. Ptaszynska

Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly, in effect, denied, without a hearing, those…

In the Matter of Timson v. Timson

Contrary to the father's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, his petition, in…