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: Artur DYSKO, appellant, v. Malgorzata DYSKO, respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Esther M. Morgenstern, J.), dated November 4, 2021. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children without prejudice.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties have two children together. On December 19, 2019, the father filed a petition for sole legal and physical custody of the children. During court conferences on July 13, 2021, and October 14, 2021, the Supreme Court directed the father to enroll in alcohol treatment. The father failed to comply with the court's orders. On November 4, 2021, on the record, the court directed the dismissal of the father's petition without prejudice, stating that the father could refile a custody petition when he was ready to cooperate with the court's directives. In an order dated November 4, 2021, the court dismissed the father's petition without prejudice. The father appeals.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the father's petition, without prejudice to him refiling a petition for custody of the parties’ children when he was prepared to cooperate with the court's directives. Under the circumstances of this case, the father's noncompliance with the court's directives prevented the matter from proceeding to a best interests hearing (see Matter of Jones v. Rodriguez, 209 A.D.3d 651, 652, 174 N.Y.S.3d 874; Matter of Cardona v. McNeill, 199 A.D.3d 1002, 1003, 154 N.Y.S.3d 817).
The remaining contentions of the parties and the attorney for the children are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., RIVERA, MALTESE and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.
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: 2021–09428
Decided: February 15, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)