From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wiener v. Wiener

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2003
303 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-02531

Submitted February 20, 2003.

March 17, 2003.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated January 9, 1997, the plaintiff father appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated January 28, 2002, as denied, without a hearing, those branches of his motion which were to modify the defendant mother's visitation rights, and for an additional forensic examination of her.

Taub Showman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Malcolm S. Taub of counsel), for appellant.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for complete forensic evaluations of the parties, the child, and the paternal grandmother, the appointment of a Law Guardian, and a hearing in accordance herewith.

In view of the conflicting allegations of the parties, it was error for the Supreme Court not to conduct a hearing before resolving issues as to the mother's visitation rights (see Matter of Brooks v. Brooks, 255 A.D.2d 382; Van Etten v. Van Etten, 207 A.D.2d 992). Although the Supreme Court was familiar with the parties from prior proceedings, there were new allegations presented in the father's motion which raise new concerns regarding visitation (see Walash v. Walash, 183 A.D.2d 1). Accordingly, under the circumstances herein, the matter must be remitted so that complete forensic evaluations may be made of the parties, the child, and the paternal grandmother (cf. Matter of Estrada v. Estrada, 154 A.D.2d 376). In addition, a Law Guardian should be appointed for the child. Upon completion of the forensic evaluations, a hearing on the issue of visitation should be held, with the paramount consideration being the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wiener v. Wiener

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2003
303 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Wiener v. Wiener

Case Details

Full title:ALAN WIENER, appellant, v. CAROLYN WIENER, respondent

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

Date published: Mar 17, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 767

Citing Cases

Wiener v. Wiener

Ordered that the order dated February 9, 2004, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the…

Sullivan v. Plotnick

Ordered that the order dated October 4, 2007, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs…