green
Positive treatment
35.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DeSouza v. DeSouza
Accordingly, on the record before us, we find that Supreme Court's parenting time determination is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Nolan v Nolan , 104 AD3d 1102, 1106 [2013]) and we decline to modify same. [FN5] Next, we find the husband's challenge to Supreme Court's distribution of the parties' marital assets to be unavailing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paul LL. v. Tanya LL.
In view of the foregoing proof, the Lincoln hearing testimony and the recommendation of the psychological report calling for therapy and repair of the children’s relationship with the father, we find the requisite sound and substantial basis in the record for the conclusion that the best interests of the children warrant an award of sole custody to the mother and therapeutic visitation to the father (see Matter of Mikell v Bermejo, 139 AD3d 954, 955 [2016]; Matter of Knox v Romano, 137 AD3d at 1531 ; Matter of Cid v DiSanto, 122 AD3d 1094, 1096 [2014]; Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1105 [201…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paul LL. v. Tanya LL.
In view of the foregoing proof, the Lincoln hearing testimony and the recommendation of the psychological report calling for therapy and repair of the children’s relationship with the father, we find the requisite sound and substantial basis in the record for the conclusion that the best interests of the children warrant an award of sole custody to the mother and therapeutic visitation to the father (see Matter of Mikell v Bermejo, 139 AD3d 954, 955 [2016]; Matter of Knox v Romano, 137 AD3d at 1531 ; Matter of Cid v DiSanto, 122 AD3d 1094, 1096 [2014]; Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1105 [201…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Angel RR.
However, because the father appeared at a subsequent permanency hearing in May 2016 and, thus, has received the relief he now requests, we dismiss the appeal as moot (see Matter of Little v Little, 107 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2013]; Matter of Dye v Bernier, 104 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Knox v. Romano
Turning to visitation, we agree with Family Court that a change in circumstances has been demonstrated and that a modification of the then-existing visitation schedule is necessary to ensure the children’s best interests (see Matter of Carr v Stebbins, 135 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2016]; Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1105 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Kylene FF. v. Thomas EE.
This evidence clearly demonstrates that the parties’ relationship had deteriorated to the point that they were no longer able to cooperate for the benefit of the children and, thus, the requisite change in circumstances had occurred (see Matter of Virginia C. v Donald C., 114 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2014]; Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1104 [2013]; Matter of Williams v Williams, 66 AD3d 1149, 1150-1151 [2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowe v. Bonelli
Further, as a general rule, “a voluntary agreement of joint custody . . . will not be set aside unless there has been a sufficient change in circumstances showing that a modification will be in the best interests of the children” (Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2013]; see Matter of Kiernan v Kiernan, 114 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2014] ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowe v. Bonelli
Further, as a general rule, “a voluntary agreement of joint custody . . . will not be set aside unless there has been a sufficient change in circumstances showing that a modification will be in the best interests of the children” (Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2013]; see Matter of Kiernan v Kiernan, 114 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2014] ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of McFarlane v. Newton
Here, the Family Court’s determination that the child’s best interests would be served by an award of *1200 custody to the father has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of McLennan v Gordon, 122 AD3d 742, 743 [2014]; Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1105 [2013]; Matter of Vasquez v Ortiz, 77 AD3d 962 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LaPlante v. LaPlante
(2×)
Inasmuch as the wife’s counsel failed to “establish the nature or value of the services rendered,” Supreme Court did not err in refusing to award counsel fees (Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1107 [2013]; see Yarinsky v Yarinsky, 2 AD3d 1108, 1110 [2003]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heather B. v. Daniel B.
Here, in light of the parties’ inability to work together for the good of the children, the mother’s interference with the children’s relationship with their father and the mother’s inappropriate questioning and treatment of her older son, Supreme Court’s award of sole legal and primary physical custody to the father properly serves the children’s best interest (see Matter of Greene v Robarge, 104 AD3d at 1077). 2 Lahtinen, McCarthy and Lynch, JJ., concur.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heather B. v. Daniel B.
Here, in light of the parties’ inability to work together for the good of the children, the mother’s interference with the children’s relationship with their father and the mother’s inappropriate questioning and treatment of her older son, Supreme Court’s award of sole legal and primary physical custody to the father properly serves the children’s best interest (see Matter of Greene v Robarge, 104 AD3d at 1077). 2 Lahtinen, McCarthy and Lynch, JJ., concur.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP v. Affronti
We conclude that this appeal from the May order has been rendered moot by the court’s issuance of the June order and therefore must be dismissed (see Deering v State of New York, 111 AD3d 1368, 1368 [2013]; Matter of Dye v Bernier, 104 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP v. Affronti
We conclude that this appeal from the May order has been rendered moot by the court’s issuance of the June order and therefore must be dismissed (see Deering v State of New York, 111 AD3d 1368, 1368 [2013]; Matter of Dye v Bernier, 104 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2013]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Virginia C. v. Donald C.
“Relevant factors to be weighed include maintaining stability in the children’s lives, the quality of respective home environments, the length of time the present custody arrangement has been in place, each parent’s past performance, relative fitness and ability to provide for and guide the children’s intellectual and emotional development, and the effect the award of custody to one parent would have on the children’s relationship with the other parent” (Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1104 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Clouse v Clouse, 110 AD…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Virginia C. v. Donald C.
“Relevant factors to be weighed include maintaining stability in the children’s lives, the quality of respective home environments, the length of time the present custody arrangement has been in place, each parent’s past performance, relative fitness and ability to provide for and guide the children’s intellectual and emotional development, and the effect the award of custody to one parent would have on the children’s relationship with the other parent” (Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1104 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Clouse v Clouse, 110 AD…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alecca v. Alecca
We agree with the husband, however, that the distribution of $10,000 from his premarital 401(k) account was improper in light of his testimony, which was neither disputed by the wife nor expressly discounted by the court, that it was funded solely with separate property and never converted to marital property (see Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1106 [2013]; Blay v Blay, 51 AD3d 1189, 1191 [2008]; Shen v Shen, 21 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alecca v. Alecca
We agree with the husband, however, that the distribution of $10,000 from his premarital 401(k) account was improper in light of his testimony, which was neither disputed by the wife nor expressly discounted by the court, that it was funded solely with separate property and never converted to marital property (see Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1106 [2013]; Blay v Blay, 51 AD3d 1189, 1191 [2008]; Shen v Shen, 21 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deering v. State
Because the August 2013 order affords claimant “all the relief she seeks and . . . [thus] renders the appeal moot” (Matter of Dye v Bernier, 104 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2013]), this appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Gasparro v Edwards, 85 AD3d 1222 , 1222 n [2011]; see generally Matter of Cucinella v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deering v. State
Because the August 2013 order affords claimant “all the relief she seeks and . . . [thus] renders the appeal moot” (Matter of Dye v Bernier, 104 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2013]), this appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Gasparro v Edwards, 85 AD3d 1222 , 1222 n [2011]; see generally Matter of Cucinella v New York City Tr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Festa v. Dempsey
The record also amply supports Family Court’s findings that the mother had become unwilling to foster the child’s relationship with the father, the father’s home environment was more stable and he was more likely to foster the child’s relationship with the mother (see Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1105-1106 [2013]; Matter of Arieda v Arieda-Walek, 74 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yeager v. Yeager
The threshold determination in an application to modify an existing visitation order is whether there has been a sufficient change in circumstances reflecting a real need for change to insure the continued best interests of the child (see Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2013]; Matter of Brown v Erbstoesser, 85 AD3d 1497, 1499 [2011]; Matter of Bond v MacLeod, 83 AD3d 1304, 1305 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yeager v. Yeager
The threshold determination in an application to modify an existing visitation order is whether there has been a sufficient change in circumstances reflecting a real need for change to insure the continued best interests of the child (see Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2013]; Matter of Brown v Erbstoesser, 85 AD3d 1497, 1499 [2011]; Matter of Bond v MacLeod, 83 AD3d 1304, 1305 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Festa v. Dempsey
The record also amply supports Family Court’s findings that the mother had become unwilling to foster the child’s relationship with the father, the father’s home environment was more stable and he was more likely to foster the child’s relationship with the mother (see Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1105-1106 [2013]; Matter of Arieda v Arieda-Walek, 74 AD3d 1432, 1433 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deyo v. Bagnato
(2×)
It is axiomatic that, where a voluntary custodial arrangement exists, it will not be altered absent a sufficient change in circumstances necessitating a modification in order to meet the best interests of the child (see Matter of Youngs v Olsen, 106 AD3d 1161, 1163 [2013]; Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1104 [2013]; Matter of Rosi v Moon, 84 AD3d 1445, 1445 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Deyo v. Bagnato
(2×)
It is axiomatic that, where a voluntary custodial arrangement exists, it will not be altered absent a sufficient change in circumstances necessitating a modification in order to meet the best interests of the child (see Matter of Youngs v Olsen, 106 AD3d 1161, 1163 [2013]; Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 1104 [2013]; Matter of Rosi v Moon, 84 AD3d 1445, 1445 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Rockhill v. Kunzman
Family Court determined that “a change in circumstances ha[d] occurred that warrants an inquiry into the child [ ]’s best interests” (Matter of Schmitz v Schmitz, 139 AD3d 1123, 1123 [2016]; see Matter of Tara AA. v Matthew BB., 139 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2016]), and the parties do not dispute that their relationship deteriorated after the entry of the 2013 divorce judgment and that their “inability to engage in cooperative decision-making demonstrated that joint legal custody was no longer workable” (Matter of Knox v Romano, 137 AD3d 1530, 1531 [2016]; see Nolan v Nolan, 104 AD3d 1102, 11…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Shawn M. Dye
v.
Amanda L. Bernier, Now Known as Amanda L. Bernier-Hucks
v.
Amanda L. Bernier, Now Known as Amanda L. Bernier-Hucks
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 28, 2013.
McCarthy.
Cited by 9 opinions | Published
— McCarthy, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Lambert, J.), entered February 2, 2012, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for custody of the parties’ child.
In February 2012, Family Court granted petitioner’s application for sole custody of the parties’ child. Respondent appealed. Respondent subsequently filed a petition seeking custody. In November 2012, the court, upon the parties’ consent, granted respondent sole custody. This subsequent order, which provides respondent with all the relief she seeks and supercedes the order being appealed, renders the appeal moot (see Matter of Rolston v Decker, 94 AD3d 1264, 1264 [2012]; Matter of Dickerson v Knox, 89 AD3d 1290, 1291 [2011]; Matter of Stalker v Stalker, 88 AD3d 1177, 1178 [2011]).
Mercure, J.E, Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.