Opinion
281 18–01016
05-03-2019
In the Matter of Carlos M. SANCHEZ, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Alba M. MERCEDES, Respondent–Respondent. (Appeal No. 2.)
ELISABETH M. ROSSOW, CHEEKTOWAGA, FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT. JENNIFER PAULINO, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
ELISABETH M. ROSSOW, CHEEKTOWAGA, FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT.
DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
JENNIFER PAULINO, BUFFALO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the fourth ordering paragraph and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this Family Court Act article 6 proceeding, petitioner father appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed his petition to modify a prior custody and visitation order. We agree with the father that Family Court improperly conditioned his right to file future petitions to modify the governing custody and visitation arrangement upon his completion of anger management treatment, and we therefore modify the order accordingly (see Matter of Smith v. Loyster, 156 A.D.3d 1490, 1491, 65 N.Y.S.3d 832 [4th Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Vieira v. Huff, 83 A.D.3d 1520, 1522, 922 N.Y.S.2d 684 [4th Dept. 2011] ). Given the father's history of frivolous and vexatious filings in this matter, however, the court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting him from filing any future modification petitions without prior judicial approval (see Matter of Naclerio v. Naclerio, 132 A.D.3d 679, 680, 17 N.Y.S.3d 487 [2d Dept. 2015] ; see generally Carney v. Carney, 160 A.D.3d 218, 228, 73 N.Y.S.3d 694 [4th Dept. 2018] ).