Hoffmeier v. Byrnes, 101 A.D.3d 1666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Hoffmeier v. Byrnes, 101 A.D.3d 1666 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Catherine M.C. v. Matthew P.C. (nyappdiv, 2025-04-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Catherine M.C. v. Matthew P.C. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Preliminarily, we conclude, contrary to the children's contention, that the mother's allegation that the father caused a disruption in the children's health insurance coverage does not adequately set forth a change in circumstances inasmuch as the mother also asserted that the issue had been resolved before she filed the petition ( see Matter of Hoffmeier v Byrnes , 101 AD3d 1666, 1667 [4th Dept 2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Perez v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The evidence at the hearing established that the mother appropriately addressed the children’s medical, education and dietary needs, and we therefore conclude that Family Court properly determined that the father failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the children would be served by a modification of the prior order (see Gizzi v Gizzi, 136 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2016]; Matter of Hoffmeier v Byrnes, 101 AD3d 1666, 1666-1667 [2012]; Matter of Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 68 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Suzalyn E. Hoffmeier
v.
Thomas Byrnes
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 21, 2012.
101 A.D.3d 1666
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum: Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding seeking to modify a prior order of - custody that, inter alia, granted physical custody of the subject children to respondent father and visitation to her. The prior order was based upon a full evidentiary hearing and had been entered approximately two months prior to the filing of the instant petitions. We reject the mother’s contention that Family Court erred in concluding that she failed to establish a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the prior custody determination.

We note at the outset that, although the order on appeal does not mention “changed circumstances,” the court concluded, in the decision upon which the order is based, that the mother failed to establish a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the existing custody arrangement. It is well settled that “where an order and decision conflict, the decision controls” (Matter of Triplett v Scott, 94 AD3d 1421, 1421 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of King v King, [*1667] 309 AD2d 1207, 1208 [2003]), and we thus conclude that the court made the requisite threshold finding that the mother failed to establish a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the children would be served by altering their existing custody arrangement (see Matter of Chrysler v Fabian, 66 AD3d 1446, 1447 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 715 [2010]; cf. Matter of Carey v Windover, 85 AD3d 1574, 1574 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 710 [2011]; Matter of Moore v Moore, 78 AD3d 1630, 1630 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [2011]).

With respect to the merits, we note that the only parenting problems that arose in the two months between the issuance of the prior order and the filing of the mother’s instant petitions had been resolved prior to the hearing thereon. Thus, we agree with the court that the mother failed to establish a sufficient change in circumstances such that reconsideration of the existing custody arrangement was required (see Matter of Clark v Ingraham, 88 AD3d 1079, 1079-1080 [2011]). Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.