Connor v. Connor, 104 A.D.3d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Connor v. Connor, 104 A.D.3d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Merchant v. Caldwell (nyappdiv, 2017-04-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Merchant v. Caldwell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
A parent who seeks a change of custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Macchio v Macchio, 120 AD3d 560 [2014]; Connor v Connor, 104 AD3d 638, 639 [2013]; Salick v Salick, 66 AD3d 757 [2009]; Jean v Jean, 59 AD3d 599, 600 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Chichra v. Chichra
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The party seeking modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing but must make some evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Paulino v Thompson, 145 AD3d 726, 727 [2016]; Matter of Klotz v O’Connor, 124 AD3d 662, 663 [2015]; Macchio v Macchio, 120 AD3d 560 [2014]; Connor v Connor, 104 AD3d 638, 639 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Chess v. Lichtman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
A parent who seeks a modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Macchio v Macchio, 120 AD3d 560, 560 [2014]; Connor v Connor, 104 AD3d 638, 639 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Besen v. Besen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Here, the mother’s allegations were unsubstantiated and conclusory, or did not allege a material change in circumstances (see Magee v Magee, 119 AD3d 658 [2014]; Connor v Connor, 104 AD3d 638, 639 [2013]; Matter of Palmiotti v Piscitelli, 100 AD3d 637, 638 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Macchio v. Macchio (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
A parent who séeks a change of custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Connor v Connor, 104 AD3d 638, 639 [2013]; Salick v Salick, 66 AD3d 757 [2009]; Jean v Jean, 59 AD3d 599, 600 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stock v. Stock
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Here, the defendant failed to meet his threshold burden of proffering sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on that branch of his motion which was for a modification of the custody arrangement specified in the parties’ stipulation of settlement (see Connor v Connor, 104 AD3d 638, 639 [2013]; Smoczkiewicz v Smoczkiewicz, 2 AD3d at 706 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stock v. Stock
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Here, the defendant failed to meet his threshold burden of proffering sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on that branch of his motion which was for a modification of the custody arrangement specified in the parties’ stipulation of settlement (see Connor v Connor, 104 AD3d 638, 639 [2013]; Smoczkiewicz v Smoczkiewicz, 2 AD3d at 706 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Natalie Connor
v.
Darren Connor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 6, 2013.
104 A.D.3d 638
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

[*639] In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated July 12, 2006, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated January 27, 2011, as denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to change the physical custody of the parties’ child from the mother to him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A parent who seeks a change of custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Salick v Salick, 66 AD3d 757 [2009]; Jean v Jean, 59 AD3d 599, 600 [2009]; Jackson v Jackson, 31 AD3d 386 [2006]; Smoczkiewicz v Smoczkiewicz, 2 AD3d 705, 706 [2003]; DiVittorio v DiVittorio, 283 AD2d 390 [2001]). Contrary to the father’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to change physical custody of the parties’ child from the mother to him. The father proffered only conclusory allegations to the Supreme Court in support of that branch of his motion and, thus, failed to meet his threshold burden of proffering sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing to determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a change of custody would be in the best interests of the child. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the father’s motion which was to change custody of the parties’ child from the mother to him (see Peterson v Peterson, 73 AD3d 1005 [2010]; Salick v Salick, 66 AD3d at 758; Jean v Jean, 59 AD3d at 600; Jackson v Jackson, 31 AD3d at 386; McNally v McNally, 28 AD3d 526, 527 [2006]; Kjellgren v Kjellgren, 286 AD2d 753 [2001]; DiVittorio v DiVittorio, 283 AD2d at 391).

The father’s contention that the Supreme Court should have directed an offset of his child support arrears against the mother’s outstanding equitable distribution obligations to him is not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Miller, JJ, concur.