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: LINDA SMITH–GILSEY, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. RICHARD D. GRISANTI, RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT.
IN RE: RICHARD D. GRISANTI, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT, v. LINDA SMITH–GILSEY, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JANE E. MONAGHAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, WARSAW.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent mother appeals from two orders that, inter alia, denied her petition for a modification of custody (appeal No. 1) and changed her visitation schedule (appeal No. 2). We affirm the order in each appeal. A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order must demonstrate “a change in circumstances that reflects a genuine need for the modification so as to ensure the best interests of the child” (Matter of Taylor v. Fry, 63 AD3d 1217, 1218; see Matter of Sumner v. Lyman, 70 AD3d 1223, 1224, lv denied 14 NY3d 709). Although we agree with the mother that she met her burden of proving a change in circumstances because the parties' relationship had deteriorated and the child had missed numerous visitations with her, we conclude on the record before us “ ‘that a change in custody would not be in the best interests of the [child]’ “ (Matter of Dingeldey v. Dingeldey, 93 AD3d 1325, 1326). Furthermore, the court properly exercised its discretion in crafting a visitation schedule that was in the child's best interests (see Matter of Fox v. Fox, 93 AD3d 1224, 1225).
Contrary to the mother's contention, by requiring respondent-petitioner father to post an undertaking in a specified amount, the court properly imposed a meaningful sanction based on the father's failure to comply with orders concerning her visitation rights, to ensure that visitation occurred (see generally Matter of Mason–Crimi v Crimi, 94 AD3d 1572, 1573–1574; Schoonheim v. Schoonheim, 92 A.D.2d 474, 474–475). Finally, we reject the mother's contention that the court lacked jurisdiction over the instant matters, inasmuch as the father resides in Wyoming County (see Family Ct Act § 171).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 12–01091
Decided: November 15, 2013
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)