Heater v. Heater, 81 A.D.3d 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Heater v. Heater, 81 A.D.3d 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of McIntosh v. Clary (nyappdiv, 2015-06-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of McIntosh v. Clary
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Given the circumstances, Family Court did not err in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing (see Matter of Marquis v Washington, 86 AD3d 753, 754 [2011]; Matter of Heater v Heater, 81 AD3d 1017, 1017 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hayes v. Hayes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to the father’s contentions on appeal, not every Family Ct Act article 6 petition is automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing where, as here, insufficient allegations are made to warrant such a hearing (see Matter of Heater v Heater, 81 AD3d 1017, 1017 [2011]; Matter of Hudson v Eck, 70 AD3d 1261, 1262 [2010]; Matter of Bjork v Bjork, 23 AD3d 784, 785 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 707 [2006]; see also Matter of Twiss v Brennan, 82 AD3d 1533, 1534 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hayes v. Hayes
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to the father’s contentions on appeal, not every Family Ct Act article 6 petition is automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing where, as here, insufficient allegations are made to warrant such a hearing (see Matter of Heater v Heater, 81 AD3d 1017, 1017 [2011]; Matter of Hudson v Eck, 70 AD3d 1261, 1262 [2010]; Matter of Bjork v Bjork, 23 AD3d 784, 785 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 707 [2006]; see also Matter of Twiss v Brennan, 82 AD3d 1533, 1534 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Robert A. Heater
v.
Jessica L. Heater
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 3, 2011.
81 A.D.3d 1017
Lahtinen.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tioga County (Sgueglia, J.), entered April 22, 2010, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody and visitation.

The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, which was reduced to a court order entered January 28, 2010 and granted respondent sole custody of their three minor children and awarded petitioner, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, “supervised contact with the minor children by telephone and letter correspondence as the children so desire and agree to.” On March 23, 2010, petitioner commenced this modification proceeding seeking joint custody and biweekly visitation with the children. Family Court dismissed petitioner’s application for failure to allege the requisite change in circumstances, and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. The petition contains no factual allegations of a change in circumstances that could provide a basis for modification of the January 28, 2010 order (see Matter of Dobrouch v Reed, 61 AD3d 1288, 1289 [2009]; Matter of Perry v Perry, 52 AD3d 906 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 707 [2008]). Petitioner’s[*1018] remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.