Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ELIZABETH T.L., Petitioner-Appellant, v. JEFFREY C.L., Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.), entered on or about March 9, 2005, which granted respondent father's motion to dismiss appellant mother's petition to modify the custody provisions of the parties' July 2003 Florida judgment of dissolution of marriage, and denied appellant's cross motion for leave to amend the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
A full custody trial was conducted in July 2003, just 14 months before this change of custody petition was filed. The Florida Court awarded primary residential custody to respondent father, based in part on the recommendations set forth in the extensive forensic evaluation prepared by the court-appointed psychologist.
The allegations of the petition and the proposed amended petition do not set forth a change in circumstances sufficient to support a modification of the custody provisions of the Florida judgment (see Matter of Pignataro v. Davis, 8 A.D.3d 487, 488, 778 N.Y.S.2d 528 [2004]; Matter of Thompson v. Thompson, 267 A.D.2d 516, 517, 699 N.Y.S.2d 181 [1999] ). The allegations merely present a situation aptly described by the Family Court as “the ordinary type of bickering and [conflicting] behavior that estranged and divorced parents regrettably exhibit” and do not afford grounds to infer that respondent father is unfit to continue as the custodial parent (see Zima v. Aguirre-Cotliar, 21 A.D.3d 828, 800 N.Y.S.2d 845 [2005]; DeArakie v. DeArakie, 191 A.D.2d 217, 594 N.Y.S.2d 138, lv. dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 802, 604 N.Y.S.2d 559, 624 N.E.2d 697 [1993] ).
We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 22, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)