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: MARGARET M.W.S., Petitioner–Appellant, v. RICHARD A.M., Respondent–Respondent.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Marva A. Burnett, Referee), entered on or about May 9, 2018, which granted respondent father's motion to dismiss the petition to modify an order of custody and visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly dismissed the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing (see Matter of Ronald S. v. Deirdre R., 62 A.D.3d 593, 880 N.Y.S.2d 255 [1st Dept. 2009]). This Court previously affirmed an order granting the father full custody, citing the mother's history of psychiatric hospitalizations and her continued irrational conduct, which had placed the child in danger (see 119 A.D.3d 435, 989 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept. 2014]). Thereafter, the mother filed several petitions to modify the custody order to grant her visitation with her daughter. The instant petition was filed one month after Family Court conducted a full evidentiary hearing on the mother's request for identical relief. That petition was dismissed, and this Court affirmed, finding that although the mother testified that her mental condition had improved, she provided no medical testimony to substantiate her claim (see 168 A.D.3d 521, 89 N.Y.S.3d 896 [1st Dept. 2019]).
In the instant petition, the mother has failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances since the most recent dismissal, sufficient to show that visitation would be in the child's best interests (see Matter of Savage v. Morales, 147 A.D.3d 861, 46 N.Y.S.3d 669 [2d Dept. 2017]).
We have considered the mother'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.
Docket No: 10813
Decided: January 21, 2020
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)