Matter of Hermann v. Williams, 2020 NY Slip Op 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Hermann v. Williams, 2020 NY Slip Op 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of McGuirk v. McGuirk
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
"At the outset of the hearing . . . and without objection from the [father], the court took judicial notice of the prior orders and proceedings involving the parties, which was proper in any event" ( Matter of Hermann v Williams , 179 AD3d 1545, 1546 [4th Dept 2020]; see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman , 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [4th Dept 2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Coates v. Hodge
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Contrary to the father's contention on appeal, the court's determination awarding sole legal custody and primary physical placement of the children to the mother is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed ( see Matter of Hochreiter v Williams , 201 AD3d 1303, 1304 [4th Dept 2022]; Matter of Hermann v Williams , 179 AD3d 1545, 1546 [4th Dept 2020]; see also Matter of Castle v Barnes , 221 AD3d 1562 , 1563 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 901 [2024]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Myers v. Myers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
We agree with the father that Family Court's determination lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see generally Matter of Hermann v Williams , 179 AD3d 1545, 1545 [4th Dept 2020]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Olmsted v. Olmsted
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence medium
It is well settled that "a court has the power to take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings" ( Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman , 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [4th Dept 2014]; see Matter of Amyn C. [Chelsea K.] , 144 AD3d 1690 , 1690 [4th Dept 2016]; see also Matter of Hermann v Williams , 179 AD3d 1545, 1546 [4th Dept 2020]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matter of Hermann
v.
Williams
1290 CAF 18-01626.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 31, 2020.
2020 NY Slip Op 787
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Matter of Hermann v Williams (2020 NY Slip Op 00787)
Matter of Hermann v Williams
2020 NY Slip Op 00787
Decided on January 31, 2020
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 31, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

1290 CAF 18-01626

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF NICHOLAS B. HERMANN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

v

LATESSA WILLIAMS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.




DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

BRIAN P. DEGNAN, BATAVIA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

DEBORAH J. SCINTA, ORCHARD PARK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.



Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered August 7, 2018 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, granted petitioner custody of the subject child.

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

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted petitioner father's petition to modify a prior order of custody by granting him sole custody of the subject child. Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court's determination that the father established a change in circumstances has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Hill v Trojnor, 137 AD3d 1671, 1672 [4th Dept 2016]). The testimony at the hearing established that there were incidents of domestic violence in the mother's household (see Matter of Schieble v Swantek, 129 AD3d 1656, 1657 [4th Dept 2015]; Matter of Pecore v Blodgett, 111 AD3d 1405, 1405-1406 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 864 [2014]) and that the mother had several changes of residence (see Matter of Greene v Kranock, 160 AD3d 1476, 1476 [4th Dept 2018]). Contrary to the mother's further contention, the court's determination that it was in the child's best interests for the father to have sole custody is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Mauro v Costello, 162 AD3d 1475, 1475 [4th Dept 2018]; Matter of Chyreck v Swift, 144 AD3d 1517, 1518 [4th Dept 2016]; see generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]).

We reject the mother's contention that the court erred in relying on prior litigation between the parties in concluding that the mother was unable or unwilling to foster a relationship between the child and the father. At the outset of the hearing, upon the father's request and without objection from the mother, the court took judicial notice of the prior orders and proceedings involving the parties, which was proper in any event (see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [4th Dept 2014]).

Entered: January 31, 2020

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court