Groesbeck v. Groesbeck, 52 A.D.3d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Groesbeck v. Groesbeck, 52 A.D.3d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We further note that any contentions concerning the propriety of the order dismissing the mother’s custody petitions are not properly before us because the mother did not appeal from that order (see Matter of Groesbeck v Groesbeck, 52 AD3d 903, 903 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We further note that any contentions concerning the propriety of the order dismissing the mother’s custody petitions are not properly before us because the mother did not appeal from that order (see Matter of Groesbeck v Groesbeck, 52 AD3d 903, 903 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rivera v. LaSalle
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Given the closeness of the determination and the deficiencies in the record regarding the children’s wishes, this Court can neither conclude that a sound and substantial basis exists for Family Court’s award of custody to the father (see Matter of Hurlburt v Behr, 70 AD3d 1266, 1268 [2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 943 [2010]), nor can we accord appropriate weight to the children’s preferences in conducting our own independent review (see Matter of Brown v Brown, 52 AD3d 903, 905 [2008]; Castler v Castler, 233 AD2d 720, 721 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chambers v. Renaud
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
The absence of any record evidence on these factors prevents us from conducting an independent review and requires remittal for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the relocation is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Brown v Brown, 52 AD3d 903, 905-906 [2008]; Castler v Castler, 233 AD2d 720, 721 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reginald Q. v. Richard Q.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Considering that the record is also insufficient for this Court to independently review the issue, it cannot be said that a hearing on the issue of the children’s best interests with respect to visitation was not necessary (see Matter of Brown v Brown, 52 AD3d 903, 905 [2008]; Matter of Howard v Barber, 47 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2008]; Matter of Murray v Parisella, 41 AD3d 902 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bobroff v. Farwell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
As for Family Court’s decision to allow the father to relocate with the children, the father was required to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move to Corning was in the children’s best interests (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]; Matter of Cree v Terrance, 55 AD3d 964, 967 [2008]; Matter of Brown v Brown, 52 AD3d 903, 904 [2008]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit ex rel. Gooshaw v. Cook
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
As such, his attack on the propriety of that order is not properly before us in the context of this proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 1113; Matter of Groesbeck v Groesbeck, 52 AD3d 903, 903 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Varricchio v. Varricchio
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Since the father did not take an appeal from the order requiring him to obtain written court approval before making any custody or visitation application (see Matter of Shreve v Shreve, 229 AD2d 1005 [1996]; see also Matter of Simpson v Ptaszynska, 41 AD3d 607 [2007]), the issues raised by the father challenging the propriety of that order are not properly before this Court for review (see Matter of Groesbeck v Groesbeck, 52 AD3d 903 [2008]; Herman v Herman, 191 AD2d 535 [1993]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Beverly J. Groesbeck
v.
Adam J. Groesbeck
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 5, 2008.
52 A.D.3d 903
Carpinello.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Duggan, J.), entered December 6, 2006, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, to hold respondent in willful violation of a prior order of child support.

At issue is an order of Family Court finding respondent to be in willful violation of a prior order of child support and ordering his incarceration in the event that he did not purge the contempt. The outstanding obligation was paid and respondent was thus never incarcerated. Notwithstanding, respondent, pro se, now appeals.

Having failed to appeal from all prior orders setting forth his child support obligation, respondent’s attack on the propriety of those orders in the context of this proceeding is not properly before us (see Family Ct Act § 1113). Moreover, respondent failed to appear at a hearing before the Support Magistrate on the subject violation petition and also failed to appear at the subsequent inquest. Thus, he was properly found to be in default. After further failing to appear on the initial date of the confirmation hearing before Family Court, the hearing was adjourned. On the adjourned date, his newly retained attorney sought to vacate the default, which was denied on the ground that respondent failed to offer any reasonable excuse for his prior failure to appear. To the extent that the instant appeal can be construed as including an appeal from the denial of this motion to vacate, we find that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion (see e.g. Matter of Taylor v Staples, 33 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2006], lv dismissed and denied 8 NY3d 830 [2007]).

Cardona, EJ., Spain, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.