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.
IN RE: LISA KRAMER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. KEN BERARDICURTI, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LORI ROBB MONAGHAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, ROCHESTER, FOR GABRIELLA B. AND GIANNA B.
It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition seeking sole custody of the children is granted, and the sanction imposed upon petitioner is vacated.
Memorandum: We agree with petitioner mother that Family Court erred in denying her petition seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation by granting her sole custody of the parties' children. It is well settled that “modification of an existing joint custody [arrangement] is warranted where the relationship between joint custodial parents so deteriorates that they are wholly unable to cooperate in making decisions affecting their child [ren]” (Matter of Lynch v. Tambascio, 1 AD3d 816, 817), and that is the case here. In addition, we agree with the mother that the court abused its discretion in sua sponte sanctioning her upon determining that she filed her petition frivolously, “inasmuch as the court failed to afford [her] a reasonable opportunity to be heard before doing so” (Matter of Chapman v. Tucker, 74 AD3d 1905; see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [d]; Matter of Ariola v. DeLaura, 51 AD3d 1389, lv denied 11 NY3d 701). We note that the father did not take a cross appeal from the order, and we therefore do not address any issue concerning the sanction imposed upon him. We also note that we do not disturb the order insofar as it sets forth a detailed visitation schedule.
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CAF 10-01342
Decided: December 30, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)