Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Milhollen v. Voelpel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 20, 2000

270 A.D.2d 422; 705 N.Y.S.2d 259; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3033

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Walberg v. Rudden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Mennuti v. Berry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Hongach v. Hongach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Cadejah AA. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Steinharter v. Steinharter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Heuthe v. McLaren (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re Melissa FF. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Blake v. Vilbig (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), dated October 14, 1998, which denied, without a hearing, her application to modify an order of the same court dated November 16, 1992, which granted her supervised visitation with her minor children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court did not err in denying, without a hearing, her application to modify an existing order which granted her supervised visitation with her children (see, Matter of Chaya S. v Frederick Herbert L., *423266 AD2d 219; Matter of Coutsoukis v Samora, 265 AD2d 482; Matter of Gerow v Gerow, 257 AD2d 718). One who seeks to modify an existing order of visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see, Matter of Coutsoukis v Samora, supra; Matter of Gerow v Gerow, supra; David W. v Julia W., 158 AD2d 1, 6-7). Here, the mother’s allegations, even if true, would not give rise to finding of a change in circumstances. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, jj., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.