Matter of Severo v. Lizzette

6 Citing cases

  1. Schultz v. Berke

    160 A.D.3d 1390 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    With respect to the father's alternative request for increased visitation, including overnight visitation with the child, we agree with the father on his cross appeal that the court's determination to deny that request in part was not based on a sound and substantial basis in the record inasmuch as the court's written decision is riddled with misstatements and incorrect assertions of fact (see e.g. Matter of Gilman v. Gilman, 128 A.D.3d 1387, 1388, 7 N.Y.S.3d 792 [4th Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Irons v. Schneller, 258 A.D.2d 652, 652, 686 N.Y.S.2d 61 [2d Dept. 1999] ; Matter of Severo E. v. Lizzette C., 157 A.D.2d 726, 727, 549 N.Y.S.2d 821 [2d Dept. 1990] ). For instance, the court repeatedly misstated the age of the mother when the parties began their relationship and, as the Attorney for the Child correctly concedes, the court misapprehended the contents of and the father's purpose for introducing a video recording of a Skype conversation that the mother had with the father.

  2. Gilman v. Gilman

    128 A.D.3d 1387 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    “While omission from the record on appeal of the order sought to be modified ordinarily would result in dismissal of the appeal ..., there is no dispute” concerning the custody provisions contained in that order, and we may therefore reach the merits of the issues raised on this appeal (Matter of Dann v. Dann, 51 A.D.3d 1345, 1346–1347, 858 N.Y.S.2d 844 ; see Matter of Walker v. Cameron, 88 A.D.3d 1307, 1308, 930 N.Y.S.2d 385 ). We agree with the father and the Attorney for the Child (AFC) that the court's finding that the father failed to provide the child with required medication is against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Severo E. v. Lizzette C., 157 A.D.2d 726, 727, 549 N.Y.S.2d 821 ; Matter of Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 A.D.2d 449, 449–450, 538 N.Y.S.2d 605 ). The father does not dispute that he questioned certain diagnoses and was resistant to giving the child certain medication, especially when multiple pills were sent with the child in a plastic baggie without labels.

  3. Schultz v. Schultz

    199 A.D.2d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    Rather, defendant relocated to seek a fresh start in Rhode Island, where her family lived and where she had more social opportunities (see, Sanders v Sanders, supra; Holsberg v Shankman, supra; Stec v Levindofske, supra). We reject defendant's contention that, if she fails to relocate, the award of custody to plaintiff will not be in Kendall's best interests because it will separate Kendall from her half-brother, Chad. Although courts will not disrupt sibling relationships unless there is an overwhelming need to do so (Keating v Keating, 147 A.D.2d 675, 677, appeal dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 791; Pawelski v Buchholtz, 91 A.D.2d 1200, 1201; see also, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 173; Matter of Severo E. v Lizzette C., 157 A.D.2d 726), that policy is only one factor to consider in the determination of a child's best interests (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra; Matter of Severo E. v Lizzette C., supra). The court did not err in its alternative disposition, giving priority to the child's relationship with plaintiff over her relationship with her half-brother, if defendant declines to relocate.

  4. Krebsbach v. Gallagher

    181 A.D.2d 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 69 times

    In this regard, it should also be noted that the Law Guardian also recommended against a change of custody. The Family Court's disregard for these recommendations of these two impartial observers is inexplicable in this case (see, Matter of Severo E. v Lizzette C., 157 A.D.2d 726-728).

  5. B. K. v. North

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 51124 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    While Wife's choice of personal residence is not of paramount concern to this Court, when it comes to the residence of M.N., the Court must consider which parent presents with a more stable household, including access to extended family. See Hennelly v. Viger, 198 AD2d 224 (2d Dept. 1993); See also, Severo E. v. Lizzette C., 157 AD2d 726 (2d Dept. 1990); Matter of Blakeney v. Blakeney, 99 AD3d 898 (2d Dept. 2012). In regards to a stable household, Wife testified that she was born in New Jersey and stayed there until she went to college in Pennsylvania.

  6. B. K. v. J. N.

    26 N.Y.S.3d 212 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

    While Wife's choice of personal residence is not of paramount concern to this Court, when it comes to the residence of M.N., the Court must consider which parent presents with a more stable household, including access to extended family. See Hennelly v. Viger, 198 A.D.2d 224, 603 N.Y.S.2d 168 (2d Dept.1993) ; See also, Severo E. v. Lizzette C., 157 A.D.2d 726, 549 N.Y.S.2d 821 (2d Dept.1990) ; Matter of Blakeney v. Blakeney, 99 A.D.3d 898, 952 N.Y.S.2d 295 (2d Dept.2012). In regards to a stable household, Wife testified that she was born in New Jersey and stayed there until she went to college in Pennsylvania.