Gugino v. Tsvasman, 118 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Gugino v. Tsvasman, 118 A.D.3d 1341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Olmsted v. Olmsted (nyappdiv, 2026-02-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Olmsted v. Olmsted
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
It is well settled that "a court has the power to take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings" ( Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman , 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [4th Dept 2014]; see Matter of Amyn C. [Chelsea K.] , 144 AD3d 1690 , 1690 [4th Dept 2016]; see also Matter of Hermann v Williams , 179 AD3d 1545, 1546 [4th Dept 2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Hermann v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
At the outset of the hearing, upon the father's request and without objection from the mother, the court took judicial notice of the prior orders and proceedings involving the parties, which was proper in any event ( see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman , 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [4th Dept 2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Amyn C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to the mother’s implied contention, we conclude that the court properly took judicial notice of its own prior proceedings (see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]; Matter of Miranda F. [Kevin D.], 91 AD3d 1303 , 1305 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Amyn C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to the mother’s implied contention, we conclude that the court properly took judicial notice of its own prior proceedings (see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]; Matter of Miranda F. [Kevin D.], 91 AD3d 1303 , 1305 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. McCray
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to respondent’s further contention, we conclude that the court properly took judicial notice of its own prior proceedings with respect to the father’s paternity (see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. McCray
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to respondent’s further contention, we conclude that the court properly took judicial notice of its own prior proceedings with respect to the father’s paternity (see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of McGuirk v. McGuirk
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
"At the outset of the hearing . . . and without objection from the [father], the court took judicial notice of the prior orders and proceedings involving the parties, which was proper in any event" ( Matter of Hermann v Williams , 179 AD3d 1545, 1546 [4th Dept 2020]; see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman , 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [4th Dept 2014]).
discussed Cited "see" GUILLERMO, MARIA M. v. AGRAMONTE, DOMINGO A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Although the court did not specifically address whether the mother established a change in circumstances, its determination that the mother failed to establish that sole custody should be granted to her, rather than to the father, “is the product of ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors’ . . . , and it has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of McLeod v McLeod, 59 AD3d 1011, 1011 ; see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 ; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211 ).
discussed Cited "see" Guillermo v. Agramonte
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Although the court did not specifically address whether the mother established a change in circumstances, its determination that the mother failed to establish that sole custody should be granted to her, rather than to the father, “is the product of ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors’ . . . , and it has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of McLeod v McLeod, 59 AD3d 1011, 1011 [2009]; see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211 [1992]).
discussed Cited "see" Guillermo v. Agramonte
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Although the court did not specifically address whether the mother established a change in circumstances, its determination that the mother failed to establish that sole custody should be granted to her, rather than to the father, “is the product of ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors’ . . . , and it has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of McLeod v McLeod, 59 AD3d 1011, 1011 [2009]; see Matter of Gugino v Tsvasman, 118 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2014]; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211 [1992]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Paul F. Gugino
v.
Diana Tsvasman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 13, 2014.
118 A.D.3d 1341
Carni, Centra, Dejoseph, Lindley, Scudder.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

[*1342] Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Julie A. Gordon, R.), entered March 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, ordered that respondent shall continue to have sole custody and primary physical residency of the child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order denying his petition, following a hearing, seeking to modify a prior custody order that granted sole custody of the parties’ daughter to respondent mother. It is axiomatic that the party “seeking a change in an established custody arrangement must show a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest [s] of the child” (Matter of Moore v Moore, 78 AD3d 1630, 1630 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Maher v Maher, 1 AD3d 987, 988 [2003]). Family Court did not specifically address whether the father established a change of circumstances; however its determination that the father failed to establish that sole custody should be granted to him, rather than to the mother, “is the product of ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors’ . . . , and it has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of McLeod v McLeod, 59 AD3d 1011, 1011 [2009]; see Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211 [1992]). We reject the father’s contention that the court erred in referencing in its decision information that it obtained in the hearing it conducted two years earlier, inasmuch as a court has the power to take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings (see Matter of A.R., 309 AD2d 1153, 1153 [2003]).

Present—Scudder, PJ., Centra, Carni, Lindley and DeJoseph, JJ.