Paul v. Pamela

19 Citing cases

  1. Gerorge A. v. Ivett A.

    14 Misc. 3d 622 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Motion to Consolidate The father argues that this court has jurisdiction to consolidate the article 10 proceeding with this divorce action, citing Paul B. S. v Pamela J. S. ( 70 NY2d 739, 741). Initially, ACS, the Law Guardian and the mother all questioned the court's authority to exercise jurisdiction over the article 10 proceeding.

  2. Fenoff v. Fenoff

    578 A.2d 119 (Vt. 1990)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that court had discretion to require child who was hostile to parent to see parent with aid of counselor

    Plaintiff was not held in contempt or threatened with contempt by the trial court; consequently, the issue is not now before us. Plaintiff also argues that the trial court was powerless to condition visitation on a parent's agreement to seek psychotherapy, citing numerous precedents from other jurisdictions, including Schneider v. Schneider, 127 A.D.2d 491, 495, 511 N.Y.S.2d 847, 850-51, aff'd, 70 N.Y.2d 739, 514 N.E.2d 382, 519 N.Y.S.2d 962 (1987). Whatever the wisdom of these holdings, they do not apply to the present case.

  3. Phillips v. Phillips

    146 A.D.3d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 8 times

    Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the mother in the amount of $35,000 (Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a] ), based on, among other things, $200,000 of annual income imputed to the father (see e.g. Osha v. Osha, 101 A.D.3d 481, 481, 956 N.Y.S.2d 15 [1st Dept.2012] ). Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in consolidating the Family Court actions with the Supreme Court action (see e.g. Paul B.S. v. Pamela J.S., 70 N.Y.2d 739, 741–742, 519 N.Y.S.2d 962, 514 N.E.2d 382 [1987] ; Kosovsky v. Zahl, 52 A.D.3d 305, 305, 859 N.Y.S.2d 442 [1st Dept.2008] ).

  4. Sandra C. v. Enrique M.

    92 A.D.3d 577 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

    Family Court erred in modifying the May 24, 2010 order of visitation without first conducting a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether there had been a subsequent change in circumstances and whether modification was in the child's best interests ( see Matter of Santiago v. Halbal, 88 A.D.3d 616, 932 N.Y.S.2d 32 [2011]; FCA § 467[b][ii] ). Moreover, the court lacked the authority to condition the mother's continued visitation upon her undergoing therapy ( Schneider v. Schneider, 127 A.D.2d 491, 495, 511 N.Y.S.2d 847 [1987], affd. on other grounds 70 N.Y.2d 739, 519 N.Y.S.2d 962, 514 N.E.2d 382 [1987]; Matter of Smith v. Dawn F.B., 88 A.D.3d 729, 730, 930 N.Y.S.2d 75 [2011], lv. dismissed 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 93103, 2011 WL 6350627 [2011]; Matter of Saggese v. Steinmetz, 83 A.D.3d 1144, 1145, 921 N.Y.S.2d 360 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 708, 2011 WL 4028648 [2011]; Matter of Vieira v. Huff, 83 A.D.3d 1520, 1522, 922 N.Y.S.2d 684 [2011] ). MAZZARELLI, J.P., CATTERSON, RENWICK, ABDUS-SALAAM, MANZANET-DANIELS, JJ. concur.

  5. In re Daniel

    57 A.D.3d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 15 times

    Respondent's decision not to testify allowed the court "to draw the strongest negative inference" against him ( Matter of Devante S., 51 AD3d 482 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Supreme Court properly consolidated this child protective proceeding with the divorce/custody action pending before it given its extensive familiarity with the many common factual and legal issues ( see e.g. Paul B. S. v Pamela J. S., 70 NY2d 739; Kosovsky v Zahl, 52 AD3d 305, 305). It was not a violation of CPLR 603 for the court to order consolidation on its own initiative and without a motion having been made, where the court gave all parties an opportunity to be heard ( see Nelson v Lundy, 300 AD2d 967, 968).

  6. Kosovsky v. Zahl

    52 A.D.3d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 6 times

    Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ. Given the extensive prior proceedings in the Supreme Court regarding visitation, child support and disqualification of the child's attorney, the Supreme Court properly determined to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction with the Family Court ( see NY Const, art VI, § 7 [a]) by transferring defendant's Family Court petition for, inter alia, visitation and disqualification of the child's attorney to the Supreme Court and consolidating it with plaintiff's related child support and visitation action ( see CPLR 602 [b]; Schneider v Schneider, 127 AD2d 491, 494-495, affd 70 NY2d 739). The court properly reappointed Jo Ann Douglas, Esq. as the child's attorney.

  7. Zafran v. Zafran

    28 A.D.3d 753 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 41 times

    Since the daughter's interests, and not just those of the father, are at stake, the father's refusal to cooperate with the Supreme Court's case management plan, including his express, open-court statements that he had no intention of complying with the court's orders, cannot be tolerated. At various points in the proceedings, the father has attempted to justify his defiance of court orders by arguing that those orders had the impermissible effect of conditioning his right to apply for visitation with the daughter upon his participation in therapy ( see Matter of Grassi v. Grassi, 28 AD3d 482; Pudalov v. Pudalov, 308 AD2d 524, 525-26; Matter of DeJesus v. Tinoco, 267 AD2d 308, 309; Matter of Tucker v. Tucker, 249 AD2d 643, 645; Matter of Tito G. v. Thelma G., 187 AD2d 651, 652; Jones v. Jones, 185 AD2d 228, 230; Nacson v. Nacson, 166 AD2d 510, 511; Schneider v. Schneider, 127 AD2d 491, 495, affd sub nom. Paul B.S. v. Pamela J.S., 70 NY2d 739; Matter of Paris v. Paris, 95 AD2d 857, 858; Matter of Grado v. Grado, 44 AD2d 854). The father is wrong.

  8. Murek v. Murek

    292 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    hat is warranted only where there are compelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation is detrimental to the child's welfare" ( Matter of Mallory v. Mashack, 266 A.D.2d 907). The court properly determined, based upon the testimony at the hearing and during two separate in camera interviews with the child, that plaintiff had made reasonable efforts to encourage visitation and that forcing visitation would be detrimental to the child's welfare ( see, Matter of Adam H., supra, at 1074-1075; see generally, Matter of Rhynes v. Rhynes, 242 A.D.2d 943; De Pinto v. De Pinto, 98 A.D.2d 985). We agree with defendant, however, that the court lacked the authority to condition any future application for resumption of visitation "upon a showing of completion of counseling for the issues addressed" in the court's decision ( see, Matter of Ralph M. v. Nancy M., 280 A.D.2d 995, 996; Matter of Adam H., supra, at 1075; see also, Schneider v. Schneider, 127 A.D.2d 491, 495, affd sub nom. Paul B. S. v. Pamela J. S., 70 N.Y.2d 739; Shuchter v. Shuchter, 259 A.D.2d 1013). We therefore modify the order in appeal No. 2 by striking that part of the third ordering paragraph conditioning defendant's future applications for resumption of visitation on completion of counseling.

  9. Anonymous v. Anonymous

    248 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 1 times
    In Anonymous, supra, the Appellate Division in the First Department upheld the trial court's denial of an application that custody be determined in another state.

    Supreme Court properly assumed jurisdiction to determine the child custody issues arising in the context of the within matrimonial action. Under the circumstances of this case, it will be in the child's best interest ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-d [b]) to have the matters of custody, visitation, and support resolved in one plenary proceeding along with the other relevant issues raised in the parties' ongoing New York divorce action ( see, Schneider v. Schneider, 127 A.D.2d 491, affd sub nom. Paul B. S. v. Pamela J. S., 70 N.Y.2d 739). In addition, the court's assumption of jurisdiction is supported by the child's substantial connections with this jurisdiction and by the circumstance that many of the witnesses who will testify respecting custody and visitation are located here ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-d [bl [ii]; see also, Domestic Relations Law § 75-h).

  10. Geller v. Geller

    247 A.D.2d 364 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion to remove the proceeding entitled Matter of Geller v. Geller, Docket No. 11940/97, pending in the Family Court, New York County, and consolidate it with the instant matrimonial action entitled Geller v. Geller, Index No. 838/90, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, is granted, and the proceedings are consolidated. Under the circumstances of this case, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the Judicial Hearing Officer to deny the defendant's motion to remove the Family Court proceeding commenced in New York County and consolidate it with the post-judgment proceedings pending in the Supreme Court matrimonial action ( see generally, Paul B. S. v. Pamela J. S., 70 N.Y.2d 739). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.