Vasciannio v. Nedrick
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Levitin v. Stoll (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- US Bank N.A. v. Ashley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Erin C. v. Walid M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Graham v. Rawley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Lori A. Janczewski v. Janczewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Waldron v. Heyward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Price v. Jenkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- McFadden v. McFadden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Little v. Renz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Testman v. Roman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Davis v. Venditto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Carmen C. v. Arthur G. (Queens Family Court 2006)
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 family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), dated December 7, 2001, which, sua sponte, vacated an ex parte temporary order of protection on behalf of the parties’ child against the mother, dated November 30, 2001, which was, in effect, a temporary order of custody to the father, dismissed his family offense petition, without a hearing, and directed that the parties’ child be returned to the mother.
The Family Court “properly exercised its inherent power to vacate in the interest of justice its prior order which was based on mistaken information” (Block v Block, 153 AD2d 601, 603 [1989]). The father failed to show “good cause” for a temporary order of protection against the mother on behalf of the child (see Family Ct Act § 828 [1] [a]).
Moreover, summary dismissal of the family offense petition was proper as it was devoid of specificity (see Family Ct Act § 821; Matter of Jones v Roper, 187 AD2d 593 [1992]; cf. Matter of Eileen W. v Mario A., 169 Misc 2d 484 [1996]). The father’s contentions on appeal amount to an improper collateral attack on the prior final order of custody in the mother’s favor, which he did not appeal. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.