Gizzi, John S. v. Gizzi, Tina M., 136 A.D.3d 1405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
Gizzi, John S. v. Gizzi, Tina M., 136 A.D.3d 1405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Rosendahl v. Winn (nyappdiv, 2019-09-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Rosendahl v. Winn
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Contrary to the mother's contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for Supreme Court's determination that the mother failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the changes to the custody arrangement that she requested are in the best interests of the children ( see Matter of Peay v Peay , 156 AD3d 1358, 1360 [4th Dept 2017]; Gizzi v Gizzi , 136 AD3d 1405, 1406 [4th Dept 2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laveck v. Laveck
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Here, the mother failed to demonstrate the requisite change in circumstances warranting an inquiry into whether the best interests of the children would be served by a modification of the existing custody arrangement ( see Gizzi v Gizzi , 136 AD3d 1405, 1406 [4th Dept 2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Imrie v. Lyon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Moreover, while the child's wishes are some indication of what is in his or her best interests and "are entitled to great weight" ( Matter of Coull v Rottman , 131 AD3d 964, 964 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 914 [2015]; see Matter of Oyefeso v Sully , 148 AD3d 710, 712 [2017]; Gizzi v Gizzi , 136 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2016]; Melissa C.D. v Rene I.D. , 117 AD3d 407, 408 [2014]), those expressed wishes are only one factor to be considered and do not dictate a certain result in the best interests calculus ( see Eschbach v Eschbach , 56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]; Matter of Pierce v Pierce , 151 AD3d 1610, 1610-…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Perez v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The evidence at the hearing established that the mother appropriately addressed the children’s medical, education and dietary needs, and we therefore conclude that Family Court properly determined that the father failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the children would be served by a modification of the prior order (see Gizzi v Gizzi, 136 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2016]; Matter of Hoffmeier v Byrnes, 101 AD3d 1666, 1666-1667 [2012]; Matter of Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 68 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John S. Gizzi, Appellant,
v.
Tina M. Gizzi, Respondent
CA 15-00703.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 11, 2016.
136 A.D.3d 1405
Whalen, Peradotto, Garni, Lindley, Dejoseph.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered July 24, 2014. The order, among other things, denied plaintiff’s post-divorce application to modify the parties’ agreement concerning custody and visitation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff father appeals from an order that denied his post-divorce application seeking, inter alia, modifica[*1406] tion of the parties’ agreement concerning custody of their three children. Contrary to the father’s contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for Supreme Court’s determination that he failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the children’s best interests warranted modification of the existing custody arrangement (see Matter of Avola v Horning, 101 AD3d 1740, 1740-1741 [2012]). In any event, the record also supports the court’s further determination that continuation of the existing custody arrangement would serve the best interests of the children (see Matter of Slade v Hosack, 77 AD3d 1409, 1409 [2010]). Each of the children expressed a preference to maintain the existing arrangement and, “[w]hile the express wishes of children are not controlling, they are entitled to great weight, particularly where their age and maturity would make their input particularly meaningful” (Koppenhoefer v Koppenhoefer, 159 AD2d 113, 117 [1990]; see Matter of Dingeldey v Dingeldey, 93 AD3d 1325, 1326 [2012]). In addition, the record supports the court’s determination that defendant mother had taken steps to address the children’s school attendance problems and, “contrary to the father’s allegations, there is no evidence that the mother’s . . . financial difficulties ha[ve] placed the children in jeopardy” (Matter of Bush v Bush, 74 AD3d 1448, 1450 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 711 [2010]). Finally, the record does not support the father’s contention that the court was biased in favor of the mother (see id. at 1449).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, Garni, Lindley and DeJoseph, JJ.