Bono v. Pitre, 97 A.D.3d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Bono v. Pitre, 97 A.D.3d 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Kortright v. Bhoorasingh (nyappdiv, 2016-03-16)
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Kortright v. Bhoorasingh
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“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 best interests of the child” (Matter of Klioutchnikov v Klioutchnikov, 129 AD3d 969, 969 [2015]; see Matter of Graziani C.A. [Lisa A.], 117 AD3d 729 , 730 [2014]; Matter of Cooper v Robertson, 97 AD3d 743, 743-744 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of McFarlane v. Newton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Tori v Tori, 103 AD3d 654, 655 [2013]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173 ; Matter of McKoy v Vatter, 106 AD3d at 1090 ; Matter of Cooper v Robertson, 97 AD3d 743, 744 [2012]; Matter of Clarke v Boertlein, 82 AD3d 976, 977 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alvarez v. Alvarez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the [c]ourt’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Tori v Tori, 103 AD3d 654, 655 [2013];see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173 ; Matter of McKoy v Vatter, 106 AD3d at 1090 ; Matter of Cooper v Robertson, 97 AD3d 743, 744 [2012]; Matter of Clarke v Boertlein, 82 AD3d 976, 977 [2011]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d at 1017; Mohen v Mohen, 53 AD3d at 473 ; Pierre-Paul v Boursiqu…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alvarez v. Alvarez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the [c]ourt’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Tori v Tori, 103 AD3d 654, 655 [2013];see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173 ; Matter of McKoy v Vatter, 106 AD3d at 1090 ; Matter of Cooper v Robertson, 97 AD3d 743, 744 [2012]; Matter of Clarke v Boertlein, 82 AD3d 976, 977 [2011]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d at 1017; Mohen v Mohen, 53 AD3d at 473 ; Pierre-Paul v Boursiqu…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bibi Khan-Soleil v. Rashad
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Tori v Tori, 103 AD3d 654, 655 [2013]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173 ; Matter of McKoy v Vatter, 106 AD3d at 1090 ; Matter of Cooper v Robertson, 97 AD3d 743, 744 [2012]; Matter of Clarke v Boertlein, 82 AD3d 976, 977 [2011]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d at 1017; Pierre-Paul v Boursiquot, 74 AD3d at 936 ; Mohen…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bibi Khan-Soleil v. Rashad
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Tori v Tori, 103 AD3d 654, 655 [2013]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173 ; Matter of McKoy v Vatter, 106 AD3d at 1090 ; Matter of Cooper v Robertson, 97 AD3d 743, 744 [2012]; Matter of Clarke v Boertlein, 82 AD3d 976, 977 [2011]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d at 1017; Pierre-Paul v Boursiquot, 74 AD3d at 936 ; Mohen…
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Camarda v. Charlot
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, the father failed to make a prima facie showing that "a substantial change in circumstances" had occurred subsequent to the determination of his 2015 petition for a downward modification (Family Ct Act § 451[3][a]; see Matter of Bono v Pitre , 97 AD3d 743, 743 ).
cited Cited "see" Matter of Rosenthal v. Weiss
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
The father failed to make a prima facie showing of “a substantial change in circumstances” (Family Ct Act § 451 [3] [a]; see Matter of Bono v Pitre, 97 AD3d 743 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James A.-S. v. Cassandra A.-S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Since the father failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the allegations contained in his family offense petitions, the Family Court properly denied the father’s family offense petitions (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; see also Matter of Cooper v Robertson, 97 AD3d 743, 744 [2012]; Matter of Foxworth v DeJesus, 74 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." James A.-S. v. Cassandra A.-S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Since the father failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the allegations contained in his family offense petitions, the Family Court properly denied the father’s family offense petitions (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; see also Matter of Cooper v Robertson, 97 AD3d 743, 744 [2012]; Matter of Foxworth v DeJesus, 74 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Mark L. Bono
v.
Theresa M. Pitre
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 18, 2012.
97 A.D.3d 743
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his objections to an order of a Support Magistrate dismissing, without a hearing, his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. The petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of “a substantial change in circumstances” (Family Ct Act § 451 [2] [a]; see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b] [2] [i]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Cohen, JJ, concur.