Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Peter K. v. Mayumi M.
(2×)
While the father's employment no longer required travel and long work hours, there is no indication that the custody agreement limited his parenting time to accommodate his prior work schedule ( see Matter of Mathewson v Sessler , 94 AD3d 1487, 1489 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012]; see also Matter of Kenneth N. v Elizabeth O. , 209 AD3d 1133, 1134 [3d Dept 2022]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Terramiggi v. Tarolli
It is also “within this Court’s authority to modify orders to increase or decrease visitation” (Matter of Mathewson v Sessler, 94 AD3d 1487, 1490 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yaddow v. Bianco
We note at the outset that, although Family Court failed “ ‘to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ ” (Matter of Rocco v Rocco, 78 AD3d 1670, 1671 [2010]; see CPLR 4213 [b]; Family Ct Act § 165 [a]), the record is sufficient to enable us to make the requisite findings (see Matter of Mathewson v Sessler, 94 AD3d 1487, 1489 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012]; Matter of Williams v Tucker, 2 AD3d 1366, 1367 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 705 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yaddow v. Bianco
We note at the outset that, although Family Court failed “ ‘to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ ” (Matter of Rocco v Rocco, 78 AD3d 1670, 1671 [2010]; see CPLR 4213 [b]; Family Ct Act § 165 [a]), the record is sufficient to enable us to make the requisite findings (see Matter of Mathewson v Sessler, 94 AD3d 1487, 1489 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012]; Matter of Williams v Tucker, 2 AD3d 1366, 1367 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 705 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DUBIEL, TIMOTHY J. v. SCHAEFER, STACY L.
We agree with the mother, however, that the court abused its discretion with respect to certain aspects of the revised visitation schedule (see generally Matter of Mathewson v Sessler, 94 AD3d 1487, 1489-1490 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BELEC, TERESA M. v. BELEC, DAVID A.
The Referee properly “set forth the facts [he] deem[ed] essential” in making his determination (Matter of Mathewson v Sessler, 94 AD3d 1487, 1489 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Rawleigh v. Gallt
Although we agree with the father that Family Court "erred in failing 'to set forth those facts essential to its decision' . . . , 'the record is sufficiently complete for us to make our own findings of fact in the interests of judicial economy and the well-being of the child[ ]' " ( Matter of Williams v Tucker , 2 AD3d 1366, 1367 [4th Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 705 [2004]; see Matter of Mathewson v Sessler , 94 AD3d 1487 , 1489 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012]; Matter of Hilliard v Peroni , 245 AD2d 1107, 1107 [4th Dept 1997]).
discussed
Cited "see"
BRANDON, GREGORY O. v. KING, BOBBIE L.
Although the court “erred in failing ‘to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ . . . , ‘the record is sufficiently complete for us to make our own findings of fact in the *1728 interests of judicial economy and the well-being of the child[ ]’ ” (Matter of Williams v Tucker, 2 AD3d 1366, 1367 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 705 [2004]; see Matter of Mathew son v Sessler, 94 AD3d 1487, 1489 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Emerson C. Vernon
v.
Emerson C. Vernon
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 27, 2012.
Published
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), rendered August 24, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the conviction of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [7]) to assault in the third degree (§ 120.00 [1]) and vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for sentencing on the conviction of assault in the third degree and for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5) (see People v Skinner, 94 AD3d 1516 [2012]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.