Scott LL. v. Rachel MM., 98 A.D.3d 1197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Scott LL. v. Rachel MM., 98 A.D.3d 1197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Carter v. Van Zile (nyappdiv, 2018-06-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Carter v. Van Zile
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
As such, Family Court properly dismissed the mother's amended petition ( see Matter of Elizabeth NN. v Hannah MM. , 148 AD3d 1235, 1236-1237 [2017]; Matter of Gilbert v Gilbert , 128 AD3d 1286, 1287 [2015]; Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM. , 98 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Elizabeth NN. v. Hannah MM.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The mother’s dissatisfaction with the stipulated order, without more, does not demonstrate a change in circumstances that would, in turn, warrant a best interests analysis (see Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM., 98 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2012]; Matter of Gridley v Syrko, 50 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Elizabeth NN. v. Hannah MM.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The mother’s dissatisfaction with the stipulated order, without more, does not demonstrate a change in circumstances that would, in turn, warrant a best interests analysis (see Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM., 98 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2012]; Matter of Gridley v Syrko, 50 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gilbert v. Gilbert
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Accepting Family Court’s credibility determination (see Matter of Trimble v Trimble, 125 AD3d at 1154; Matter of Cid v DiSanto, 122 AD3d 1094, 1096 [2014]), we find that the father failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior custody order (see Matter of Clarkson v Clarkson, 98 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2012]; Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM., 98 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2012]). * Finally, Family Court was well within its discretion to exclude the father from the courtroom during a portion of the mother’s testimony after he disregarded numerous warnings to c…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gilbert v. Gilbert
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Accepting Family Court’s credibility determination (see Matter of Trimble v Trimble, 125 AD3d at 1154; Matter of Cid v DiSanto, 122 AD3d 1094, 1096 [2014]), we find that the father failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior custody order (see Matter of Clarkson v Clarkson, 98 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2012]; Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM., 98 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2012]). * Finally, Family Court was well within its discretion to exclude the father from the courtroom during a portion of the mother’s testimony after he disregarded numerous warnings to c…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shirley v. Shirley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
It is well settled that a court may take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings and orders (see Matter of Anjoulic J., 18 AD3d 984, 986 [2005]) and is vested with “broad discretion in determining the parameters for proof to be accepted at the hearing” (Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM., 98 AD3d 1197, 1197 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shirley v. Shirley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
It is well settled that a court may take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings and orders (see Matter of Anjoulic J., 18 AD3d 984, 986 [2005]) and is vested with “broad discretion in determining the parameters for proof to be accepted at the hearing” (Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM., 98 AD3d 1197, 1197 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Jacklyn PP. v. Jonathan QQ.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
Initially, we are unpersuaded by the father's argument that during the dispositional hearing Family Court impermissibly allowed testimony regarding the August 16, 2020 incident at the father's house without reopening the fact-finding hearing, as "the court has broad discretion to establish the parameters of proof and may consider any relevant matter in evaluating a child's best interests" ( Matter of Colona v Colona , 125 AD3d 1123, 1125-1126 [3d Dept 2015]; see Matter of Scott LL. v Rachel MM. , 98 AD3d 1197, 1197 [3d Dept 2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Scott LL.
v.
Rachel MM.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 27, 2012.
98 A.D.3d 1197
Garry.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Garry, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered April 1, 2011, which, among other things, dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

An April 2010 Family Court order awarded sole custody of the parties’ child (born in 2006) to respondent (hereinafter the mother) and provided petitioner (hereinafter the father) with visitation every other weekend, every other Thursday evening and half of all holidays. During the year following entry of the custody order, the parties filed numerous petitions in Family Court, all but one of which were withdrawn. The remaining petition, the father’s application for modification of the custody order seeking sole custody of the child, proceeded to a hearing in March 2011. At the conclusion of the hearing, Family Court determined that the father had not established that there had been a change of circumstances warranting modification of the prior custody order. However, upon the agreement of all parties, the court added a provision to the order granting the father access to the child’s medical and educational records. The father now appeals.

We reject the father’s argument that Family Court improperly limited his proof, denying him a fair hearing. Family Court has “broad discretion in determining the parameters for proof to be accepted at the hearing” (Matter of Cool v Malone, 66 AD3d 1171, 1173 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), and we do not discern any abuse of this discretion in the record before us. The court properly precluded hearsay evidence during both parties’ testimony and limited the proof to matters relevant to the father’s application for sole custody.

[*1198] We further agree with Family Court that there was no proof of a change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior order to ensure the best interests of the child (see Matter of Fox v Grivas, 81 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2011]; Matter of Sparling v Robinson, 35 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2006]; Matter of Meyer v Lerche, 24 AD3d 976, 976-977 [2005]). Instead, the father’s testimony was simply a catalogue of his complaints with the existing custody order and dissatisfaction with the mother having sole custody of the child. It is abundantly clear from the record that the parties have made no improvement in their ability to communicate with each other, and no basis for modification of the custody order was shown.

Peters EJ., Lahtinen, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.