Engwer v. Engwer, 307 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Engwer v. Engwer, 307 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Imrie v. Lyon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Accordingly, "[a]lthough psychological evaluations . . . can provide valuable assistance to the court in its decision-making process, Family Court is certainly empowered to reach a decision contrary to the[] positions [recommended in those evaluations] based on its evaluation of all the evidence" ( Matter of Engwer v Engwer , 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003] [internal citation omitted]), and we discern no abuse of that authority here, given the record evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Kadio v. Volino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Thus, although the award of visitation is contrary to the opinion of the psychologist, Family Court acted within its discretion in reaching a conclusion based on its credibility determinations and consideration of all the evidence (see Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]; Matter of Perry v Perry, 194 AD2d 837, 838 [1993]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kelley v. VanDee
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Matter of Roe v Roe, 33 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2006]; Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eck v. Eck
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Under these circumstances, and giving deference to Family Court’s factual and credibility determinations (see Matter of Passero v Giordano, 53 AD3d 802, 803 [2008]; Matter of Sanders v Slater, 53 AD3d 716, 717 [2008]), we find that a sound and substantial basis in the record exists for Family Court’s decision (see Matter of Passero v Giordano, 53 AD3d at 803; Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) VanDusen v. VanDusen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Based on the evidence before it, Family Court properly determined that the children’s best interests would be furthered by granting petitioner sole custody (see Matter of Eck v Eck, supra at 1083; Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wendy Q. v. Richard Q.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Matter of Vickery v Vickery, 28 AD3d 833, 834 [2006]; Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]; Matter of Pearson v Parks, 306 AD2d 580, 581 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kemp v. Kemp (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
A petitioner seeking modification of the custody provisions in a separation agreement that survived the judgment of divorce must show that there has been a sufficient change in circumstances such that modification will advance the best interests of the children (see Matter of Crippen v Keator, 9 AD3d 535, 536 [2004]; Matter of Gregio v Rifenburg, 3 AD3d 830, 831 [2004]; Munson v Lippman, 2 AD3d 1252, 1253 [2003]; Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]; Matter of Hrynko v Blaha, 271 AD2d 714, 716 [2000]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Redder v. Redder
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Upon review of the record, we discern no reason to disturb those determinations and conclusions (see Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]; Scialdo v Kernan, 301 AD2d 884, 885 [2003]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) St. Pierre v. Burrows
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]; Matter of Crocker v Crocker, 307 AD2d 402, 403 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]; see also Alanna M. v Duncan M., 204 AD2d 409 [1994]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mack v. Grizoffi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
In any event, the legal standard for determining custody and visitation modifications is basically the same (see Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tavernia v. Bouvia (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Based on Family Court’s ability to observe the witnesses, its determination will not be disturbed if there is a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Engwer v Engwer, supra at 505).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grayson v. Fenton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
While this ruling renders academic respondent’s remaining argument that Family Court also erred in failing to conduct a hearing, we nonetheless note that the petition, as presented, would not have warranted a hearing and would have been subject to dismissal because it failed to allege any change in circumstances whatsoever (see Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]; Matter of Cooke v Miller, 300 AD2d 959, 960 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gregio v. Rifenburg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
To warrant modification of an existing order of custody, petitioner is required to show a sufficient change in circumstances that demonstrates a real need for a change to ensure the continued best interests of the child (see Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]; Matter of Crocker v Crocker, 307 AD2d 402, 402 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 515 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Munson v. Lippman (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Thus, Family Court applied the more rigorous test used to modify an existing custody order which mandates that it remain undisturbed absent a showing of a change in circumstances such that a change in custody would advance the best interests of the child (see Matter of Engwer v Engwer, 307 AD2d 504, 505 [2003]; Matter of Ciannamea v McCoy, 306 AD2d 647, 647 [2003]).
cited Cited "see" Matter of J.G. v. B.G.
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Nassau Cty. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Engwer v Engwer, supra and Mack v Grizoffi, supra. In addition, the Court's consideration of domestic violence must be a searching one.
discussed Cited "see" Matter of J.R.W. v. L.F.W. (2×)
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Nassau Cty. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Engwer v Engwer, supra .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Todd R. Engwer
v.
Melissa M. Engwer
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 10, 2003.
307 A.D.2d 504
Kane.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
Kane, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County (Breen, J.), entered August 9, 2002, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for modification of a prior order of custody.

[*505] Pursuant to a stipulated custody order entered in October 2000, the parties share joint legal custody of their three children, respondent has primary physical custody, and petitioner has liberal visitation on an alternating schedule including five days and nights every two weeks. The schedule provides for alternate week visitation in the summer. In September 2001, petitioner sought to modify the arrangement to joint physical custody on the alternating week schedule used that summer. Following a hearing, Family Court declined to modify the custody order and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals.

Petitioner argues that Family Court incorrectly applied the standard for a modification in custody when this case only involves a modification of visitation. He is incorrect on the facts and the law. Factually, his petition asks for a change from primary physical custody with respondent to joint physical custody. Legally, the standard is the same for modifications of visitation and custody, although the extent and magnitude of the proposed modification have some bearing on the court’s ultimate determination. The standard requires the petitioner to “demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting modification of the visitation [or custody] order to advance the best interests] of the child[ren]” (Matter of Reese v Jones, 249 AD2d 676, 677 [1998] [citations omitted]; see Matter of La Bier v La Bier, 291 AD2d 730, 732 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 671 [2002]). Family Court’s decision will not be disturbed if there is a sound and substantial basis in the record, giving great deference to that court’s credibility determinations as it was able to observe the witnesses at the hearing (see Matter of Meola v Meola, 301 AD2d 1020, 1021 [2003]; Scialdo v Kernan, 301 AD2d 884, 885 [2003]).

Petitioner explained that he could arrange his work schedule by trading shifts so that he would be home almost the entire time during weeks the children were with him if an alternate week schedule was adopted, thereby satisfying his burden of demonstrating a change in circumstances. However, given that the children are doing well under the existing order, petitioner failed to prove that it would advance the children’s best interests to change the current custodial arrangement. Although psychological evaluations and law guardian submissions can provide valuable assistance to the court in its decision-making process (see Matter of Thompson v Thompson, 267 AD2d 516, 519 [1999]), Family Court is certainly empowered to reach a decision contrary to their positions based on its evaluation of all the evidence (see Matter of Fletcher v Young, 281 AD2d 765, 768 [2001]).

[*506] Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.