G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2015–2020 ·
…inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge's bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party
at p. 678
✓
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2013–2014 ·
…in order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child
at p. 677
✓
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2013–2014 ·
…since any custody determination depends to a very great extent upon the hearing court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed unl…
at p. 677
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Bibi H. v. Services-Queens
In any event, when a claim of bias is raised, "[t]he inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge's bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party" ( Matter of Davis v Pignataro , 97 AD3d 677, 678 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Pedicini v. Hull
A party seeking to modify an existing custody and parental access order must show a "change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Davis v Pignataro , 97 AD3d 677, 677 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of LaChere v Maliszweski , 157 AD3d 696 , 697).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Roa v. Marte
Where modification of an existing order of custody and parental access is sought, the petitioner must make a showing of a "change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Davis v Pignataro , 97 AD3d 677, 677 [internal quotation marks omitted]; accord Matter of Hargrove v Langenau , 138 AD3d 846, 846 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Granzow v. Granzow
Where modification of an existing order of custody and parental access is sought, the [*2]petitioner must make a showing of a "change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child" ( Matter of Davis v Pignataro , 97 AD3d 677, 678 [internal quotation marks omitted]; accord Matter of Hargrove v Langenau , 138 AD3d 846, 846 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paruchuri v. Akil
In any event, the record contains no evidence of such bias (see Matter of E.D. v D.T., 152 AD3d 583, 585 [2017]; Seborovski v Kirschtein, 117 AD3d 627, 627 [2014]; Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 678 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greene v. Rachlin
The plaintiffs’ claim that the Supreme Court was biased against them is unpreserved for appellate review, as they did not move for the court to recuse itself (see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.], 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2016]; Matter of Bowe v Bowe, 124 AD3d 645, 646 [2015])- In any event, their contention is without merit (see Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 678 [2012]; Matter of Serkez v Serkez, 34 AD3d 592, 592 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Maxwell v. Watt
Modification of an existing custody order is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests of the child (see Matter of Vujanic v Petrovic, 125 AD3d 984, 985 [2015]; Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677 [2012]; Trinagel v Boyar, 70 AD3d 816, 816 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Biancoviso v. Barona
In any event, when a claim of bias is raised, the “inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge’s bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 678 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Bowe v Bowe, 124 AD3d at 646 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Sullivan v. Plotnick
Here, the record shows that the Judicial Hearing Officer treated the parties fairly and did not have a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the hearings (see Matter of Bowe v Bowe, 124 AD3d 645, 646 [2015]; Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d at 678; Hoey v Rawlings, 51 AD3d 868, 869 [2008]; Lorenzo v Mass, Inc., 31 AD3d 616, 617 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Yehudah v. Yehudah
When a claim of bias is raised, the “inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge’s bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 678 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Baby Girl Z. (Yaroslava Z.)
Although this issue is unpreserved for appellate review, we exercise our power to reach it in the interest of justice because the Family Court’s conduct deprived the mother of a fair hearing (see Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v GML Tower, LLC, 21 NY3d 352 , 361 n 4 [2013]; Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]). “[W]hen a claim of bias is raised, the ‘inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge’s bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party’ ” (Matter of Bowe v Bowe, 124 AD3d at 646 , quoting Matter of Davis v Pignat…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Adragna v. Fuori
Since a custody determination necessarily depends to a great extent upon assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the trial court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Quintanilla v Morales, 110 AD3d 1081, 1081-1082 [2013]; Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2012]; Cervera v Bressler, 90 AD3d 803, 805 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of DeMille v. Pizzo
The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]). “ ‘Since any custody determination depends to a very great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’” (Matter of Hixenbaugh v Hixenbaugh, 111 AD3d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Worner v. Gavin
(2×)
In addition, as custody determinations depend to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its credibility findings are accorded deference, and its custody determinations will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Diaz v Garcia, 119 AD3d 682, 683 [2014]; Matter of Quintanilla v Morales, 110 AD3d at 1081-1082 ; Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Thomas v. Wong
In addition, as custody determinations depend to a great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are accorded deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Diaz v Garcia, 119 AD3d 682, 683 [2014]; Matter of Quintanilla v Morales, 110 AD3d at 1081-1082 ; Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Vujanic v. Petrovic
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
To warrant modification of an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Family Ct Act § 652 [a]; Matter of Hixenbaugh v Hixenbaugh, 111 AD3d 636, 637 [2013]; Matter of Thomson v Battle, 99 AD3d 804, 806 [2012]; Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677 [2012]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Bowe v. Bowe
In any event, when a claim of bias is raised, the “inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge’s bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 678 [2012]; see Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Delva v. New York City Transit Authority
Finally, the record does not support the defendants’ contention that the Supreme Court was biased against them or that the court’s bias, if any, “unjustly affected the result to [their] detriment” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 678 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Richardson v *655 City of New York, 109 AD3d 808 [2013]; Fekry v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Begy v. Begy
“Since any custody determination depends to a very great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Quintanilla v Morales, 110 AD3d at 1081-1082).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Begy v. Begy
“Since any custody determination depends to a very great extent upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Quintanilla v Morales, 110 AD3d at 1081-1082).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schmidt v. Dunn
“In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Hixenbaugh v Hixenbaugh, 111 AD3d 636 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schmidt v. Dunn
“In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Hixenbaugh v Hixenbaugh, 111 AD3d 636 [2013]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hixenbaugh v. Hixenbaugh
(4×)
“In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro 97 AD3d 677, 677 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Peralta v Irrizary, 76 AD3d 561 , 562 [2010]; Matter of Arduino v Ayuso, 70 AD3d 682, 682 [2010]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hixenbaugh v. Hixenbaugh
(4×)
“In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of Davis v Pignataro 97 AD3d 677, 677 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Peralta v Irrizary, 76 AD3d 561 , 562 [2010]; Matter of Arduino v Ayuso, 70 AD3d 682, 682 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guzman v. Pizarro
Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173-174 ), that court’s findings are generally accorded deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2012]; Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186-1187 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guzman v. Pizarro
Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173-174 ), that court’s findings are generally accorded deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 677-678 [2012]; Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186-1187 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Cameron ZZ. v. Ashton B.
Although some of the comments would have been better left unsaid, nothing in the record reveals that any bias on the court's part "unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the [father]" or that the court "[had] a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the hearing" ( Matter of Bowe v Bowe , 124 AD3d 645, 646 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Davis v Pignataro , 97 AD3d 677, 678 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Glen Davis
v.
Lisa Pignataro, (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Lisa Pignataro v. Glen Davis, (Proceeding No. 2.)
v.
Lisa Pignataro, (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Lisa Pignataro v. Glen Davis, (Proceeding No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 11, 2012.
Cited by 38 opinions | Published
“ ‘In order to modify an existing custody or visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child’ ” (Matter of Peralta v Irrizary, 76 AD3d 561, 562 [2010], quoting Matter of Arduino v Ayuso, 70 AD3d 682, 682 [2010]). “ ‘The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances’ ” (Matter of Jackson v Coleman, 94 AD3d 762, 763 [2012], quoting Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2010]; see Matter of Solovay v Solovay, 94 AD3d 898 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 808 [2012]). “Since any custody determination depends to a very great extent[*678] upon the hearing court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great respect and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Chabotte v Faella, 77 AD3d 749, 749-750 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Here, contrary to the father’s arguments, the Supreme Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, and its determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Thus, the court’s determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Solovay v Solovay, 94 AD3d 898 [2012]; Matter of Jackson v Coleman, 94 AD3d 762 [2012]; Neuman v Neuman, 19 AD3d 383, 384 [2005]; Maloney v Maloney, 208 AD2d 603, 603 [1994]).
Moreover, there is no merit to the father’s contention that the Supreme Court was unfairly biased against him. “The inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge’s bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party” (Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 28 AD3d 465, 466 [2006]; see State Div. of Human Rights v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 59 AD2d 1054, 1056 [1977]). Here, the record contains no evidence of such bias (see Hoey v Rawlings, 51 AD3d 868, 869 [2008]; Lorenzo v Mass, Inc., 31 AD3d 616, 617 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.