From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meadowcroft v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 31, 2007
42 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-02138.

July 31, 2007.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Cohen-Gallet, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 15, 2006, as, upon denying the father's custody petition, directed that she move the children back to any location within 35 miles of her former residence on Staten Island.

Andrew John Calcagno, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.

Anthony J. Morisano, Staten Island, N.Y., Law Guardian for the children.

Before: Miller, J.P., Mastro, Krausman and Carni, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the provision directing the appellant to move the children back to any location within 35 miles of her former residence on Staten Island is vacated.

In the absence of a petition seeking a modification of a prior order of custody or visitation or alleging a violation of a prior order of custody or visitation, the Family Court was without jurisdiction to direct the appellant to move the children back to any location within 35 miles of her former residence on Staten Island ( see Matter of Harriet II. v Alex LL.), 292 AD2d 92; Matter of Massaro v English), 262 AD2d 879).


Summaries of

Meadowcroft v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 31, 2007
42 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Meadowcroft v. Woods

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL MEADOWCROFT, Respondent, v. WENDY WOODS, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 31, 2007

Citations

42 A.D.3d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 6280
840 N.Y.S.2d 141

Citing Cases

Papandrea v. Pallan

Moreover, we agree with the father that the Family Court erred in directing him to pay $250 in additional…