From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Wood v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 3, 2002
296 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

838 CAF 01-00302

July 3, 2002.

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Monroe County (Sirkin, J.), entered September 12, 2000, which granted visitation to respondent.

TYSON BLUE, MACEDON, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

DAN M. WALTERS, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Before: HAYES, J.P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, BURNS, AND LAWTON, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Contrary to the contention of petitioner, Family Court properly determined his petitions without conducting a hearing. With respect to the petition seeking a change in custody and visitation, the court modified the existing visitation schedule, and petitioner "failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances" to require a hearing on the issue whether the existing custody order should be modified ( Matter of Reese v. Jones, 279 A.D.2d 939, 940; see Matter of Darla N. v. Christine N. [appeal No. 2] , 289 A.D.2d 1012, 1012). With respect to the petition seeking to hold respondent in contempt for her alleged violation of the existing custody and visitation order, the court indicated that it was dismissing that petition because the prior order did not contain the requisite warnings. Petitioner failed to include the prior order in the record on appeal, and thus we are unable to review the propriety of the court's dismissal of the contempt petition.


Summaries of

Matter of Wood v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 3, 2002
296 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Matter of Wood v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF TIMOTHY WOOD, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. LORRY MARSHALL…

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

Date published: Jul 3, 2002

Citations

296 A.D.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
744 N.Y.S.2d 922

Citing Cases

Forrestel v. Jonkman

To the extent that defendant challenges the denial of her cross motion, we affirm the order. The parties'…

In the Matter of DiFiore v. Scott

nt should not be changed `merely because of changes in marital status, economic circumstances or improvements…