Dowgiallo v. Williams, 99 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Dowgiallo v. Williams, 99 A.D.3d 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Brown-Winfield v. Bailey (nyappdiv, 2016-10-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Brown-Winfield v. Bailey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The court issued an order dismissing the family offense petition on the ground that the allegations do not constitute a family offense. *708 A family offense petition may be dismissed without a hearing where the petition fails to set forth factual allegations which, if proven, would establish that the respondent has committed a qualifying family offense (see Matter of Marino v Marino, 110 AD3d 887 [2013]; Matter of Dowgiallo v Williams, 99 AD3d 708, 709 [2012]; Matter of Price v Jenkins, 92 AD3d 787 [2012]; Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]; cf. Family Ct Act § 821).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellen Z. v. Isaac D.
N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. · 2015 · confidence medium
Such conclusory and unsubstantiated assertions in a family offense petition are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the petition (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]; Matter of Price v Jenkins, 92 AD3d 787 [2012]; Matter of Dowgiallo v Williams, 99 AD3d 708, 709 [2012]; Matter of Ozdemir v Riley, 101 AD3d 884, 885 [2012]; Matter of Marino v Marino, 110 AD3d 887, 888 [2013]; Matter of Bustamante v Largue, 112 AD3d 819, 820 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marino v. Marino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the factual allegations set forth in his petition were insufficient to allege conduct that would constitute the offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 821 [1] [a]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Dowgiallo v Williams, 99 AD3d 708, 709 [2012]; Matter of Price v Jenkins, 92 AD3d 787 [2012]; Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]; Matter of Jones v Roper, 187 AD2d 593 [1992]; cf. Matter of Little v Renz, 90 AD3d 757 [2011]; Matter of McFadden v McFadden, 83 AD3d 943 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marino v. Marino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the factual allegations set forth in his petition were insufficient to allege conduct that would constitute the offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 821 [1] [a]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; Matter of Dowgiallo v Williams, 99 AD3d 708, 709 [2012]; Matter of Price v Jenkins, 92 AD3d 787 [2012]; Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]; Matter of Jones v Roper, 187 AD2d 593 [1992]; cf. Matter of Little v Renz, 90 AD3d 757 [2011]; Matter of McFadden v McFadden, 83 AD3d 943 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Erik Dowgiallo
v.
Kellie Williams
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 3, 2012.
99 A.D.3d 708
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

[*709] The Family Court properly vacated a temporary order of protection and dismissed the father’s family offense petition against the mother, without a hearing, as the petition failed to allege conduct by the mother that would constitute disorderly conduct or reckless endangerment (see Family Ct Act §§ 812 [1]; 832; Matter of Davis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837, 838 [2007]; Matter of Jones v Roper, 187 AD2d 593 [1992]).

Further, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing, without a hearing, the father’s petition to modify an existing custody order so as to award him sole residential custody of the subject child. The father was required to make “some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing” based upon a subsequent change of circumstances (Matter of Mennuti v Berry, 59 AD3d 625, 625 [2009]), “such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child” (Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 71 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2010]; see Matter of Jean v Washington, 71 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2010]), and the father failed to do so.

The father’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Angiolillo, J.E, Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.