Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Galanti v. Kraus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 7, 2011

85 A.D.3d 723; 924 N.Y.S.2d 848

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Goldhaber v. Rosen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Boggio v. Boggio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Boggio v. Boggio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
James M. v. Kevin M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
James M. v. Kevin M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Vollkommer v. Vollkommer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Vollkommer v. Vollkommer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Matter of LaChere v. Maliszweski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Gentile v. Gentile (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Ottaviano v. Ippolito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Kramer v. Griffith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Matter of Diaz v. Garcia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Schyberg v. Peterson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Schyberg v. Peterson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Nusbaum v. Nusbaum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Nusbaum v. Nusbaum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Eddington v. McCabe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Eddington v. McCabe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Maio v. DeCrescenzo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Maio v. DeCrescenzo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Santiago v. Halbal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

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 matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated March 12, 2010, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Nicolai, J.), dated September 24, 2010, which, without a hearing, granted the plaintiffs motion to modify the visitation provisions of a stipulation of settlement dated November 9, 2009, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 1, 2010, enforcement of the order dated September 24, 2010, was stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for a hearing on the plaintiffs motion to modify the visitation provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

*724A custody or visitation order may be modified only “upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and modification is required” (Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381 [2004]). The paramount concern in any custody or visitation determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d at 380-381; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96 [1982]; Messinger v Messinger, 16 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]).

Here, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion without conducting a full evidentiary hearing as to whether her request for increased visitation was in the best interests of the subject child (see Matter of Richard W. v Maribel G., 78 AD3d 480 [2010]; Ingarra v Ingarra, 271 AD2d 573, 574 [2000]; Matter of Madalyn R. v New York City Commr. of Social Servs., 242 AD2d 574 [1997]). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for a hearing on the plaintiffs motion.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Helen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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