Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Santiago v. Halbal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided October 27, 2011

88 A.D.3d 616; 932 N.Y.2d 32

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Shoshanah B. v. Lela G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Jorge R.C. v. Julieta A.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Donna F.T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Stepan K. v. Marina M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Michael G. v. Katherine C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Sandra C. v. Enrique M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Cecil S. v. Dionne S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Susan A. v. Ibrahim A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Susan A. v. Ibrahim A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Gabriel S. v. Alphonso S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Gabriel S. v. Alphonso S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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 May 2008, the mother filed a petition seeking to modify an August 2007 order granting unsupervised visitation to the father. The petition alleged that since the entry of the 2007 order, the father had become increasingly verbally, emotionally *617and physically abusive towards the children. In response, the father filed an affidavit disputing the mother’s allegations and offering his own version of events. The court set a date for a fact-finding hearing on the mother’s petition. After the court set the hearing date, it conducted a Lincoln hearing with the children. On the scheduled date for the hearing on the petition, the court did not conduct the hearing but instead issued the order directing that the father’s visitation be supervised.

A custody or visitation order may be modified only upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and modification is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375 [2004]). In general, an evidentiary hearing is necessary before a court modifies a prior order of custody or visitation (see Matter of Rousseau v Kraft, 72 AD3d 1643 [2010] [“(d)eterminations affecting custody and visitation should be made following a full evidentiary hearing, not on the basis of conflicting allegations”]; Naomi C. v Russell A., 48 AD3d 203 [2008]).

Family Court should not have modified the prior order of visitation without holding an evidentiary hearing. We recognize that the judge here has presided over this matter for many years and is familiar with the parties and the children. Nevertheless, in light of the factual disputes and allegations of parental alienation, the court should not have summarily granted relief without conducting a full hearing on whether any changes to visitation were in the children’s best interests (see Galanti v Kraus, 85 AD3d 723 [2011]; Matter of Richard W. v Maribel G., 78 AD3d 480 [2010]). Indeed, the court initially recognized the need for such a hearing but then inexplicably issued its order without conducting the hearing. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Román, JJ.

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