Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017

Matter of Pavic v. Djokic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 14, 2017 · Mastro, Rivera, Sgroi, Maltese

2017 NY Slip Op 5735; 152 A.D.3d 696; 55 N.Y.S.3d 908

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Shahid v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Capruso v. Kubow (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Financial Freedom Acquisition, LLC v. Braunsberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Fraccola v. 1st Choice Realty, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
S.P. v. M.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
S.P. v. M.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Savage v. Morales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Panagoulopoulos v. Carlos Ortiz Jr. MD, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Perlman v. Perlman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)

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

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Joan S. Posner, J.), dated May 19, 2016. The order, without a hearing, *697 dismissed the mother’s petitions to modify an order of custody and visitation and to vacate an order of protection.

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

While public policy generally mandates free access to the courts (see Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487, 489 [2004]; Sassower v Signorelli, 99 AD2d 358, 359 [1984]), a party may forfeit that right if she or he abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will (see Matter of Scott v Powell, 146 AD3d 964, 966 [2017]; Matter of Molinari v Tuthill, 59 AD3d 722 [2009]; Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d at 489). Here, the mother failed to comply with the Family Court’s order dated June 15, 2015, requiring her to obtain leave from the court or representation by counsel before filing new petitions to modify the existing order of custody and visitation or the existing order of protection. Therefore, the court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the mother’s petitions (see Matter of Scott v Powell, 146 AD3d at 966).

The mother’s remaining contentions are either academic or without merit.

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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