Castro v. Kaminski

Citation197 A.D.3d 609,153 N.Y.S.3d 89
Decision Date18 August 2021
Docket NumberIndex No. 2500/15,2019–10512
Parties Xavier CASTRO, appellant, v. Vilma KAMINSKI, etc., respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

197 A.D.3d 609
153 N.Y.S.3d 89

Xavier CASTRO, appellant,
v.
Vilma KAMINSKI, etc., respondent.

2019–10512
Index No. 2500/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—June 3, 2021
August 18, 2021


Swidler & Messi LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven A. Swidler of counsel), for appellant.

The Kitson Law Firm, PLLC, White Plains, N.Y. (Dina S. Kaplan of counsel), for respondent.

Jennifer M. Jackman, White Plains, NY, attorney for the children.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

153 N.Y.S.3d 90

DECISION & ORDER

197 A.D.3d 609

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 9, 2013, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Josephine Trovini, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 1, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, directed a hearing to aid in the disposition of the defendant's motion, inter alia, to modify the parental access provisions of the parties' judgment of divorce and a stipulation dated March 25, 2016, and denied that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was to terminate the appointment of the attorney for the children.

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing to aid in the disposition of the defendant's motion is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties were married in 2002 and have two children together. In 2012, the defendant commenced an action in New York for a divorce and ancillary relief. According to the defendant, the plaintiff insisted that any divorce take place in France, where the parties had previously lived. On April 9, 2013, the District Court of Paris in France entered a judgment of divorce, which directed that the parties were to exercise joint "parental authority," that the "usual residence" of the children would be the defendant's residence, with parental access to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff would pay child support in the sum of $3,000 per month and cover all extracurricular expenses for the children up to $1,000 per year for each child.

197 A.D.3d 610

On March 25, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation, which provided that the parties would "continue to have joint legal custody of the [c]hildren," with primary residential custody to the defendant and parental access to the plaintiff. The stipulation also stated that the parties were to "work together with a jointly selected parent coordinator" and "consult with the parent coordinator ... as necessary before returning to Court," and that "[a]bsent an emergency, neither party shall file a petition in Court without engaging in consultation with the parent coordinator."

In June 2018, the defendant moved, inter alia, to restrict the plaintiff's current spouse from being present during the plaintiff's parental access with the children, to modify the parental access provisions of the stipulation and the judgment of divorce, and to modify the judgment of divorce so as to increase the cap for extracurricular expenses to be covered by the plaintiff from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Caldara v. Cnty. of Westchester
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 18, 2021
    ...17 N.Y.S.3d 309 ; Westchester County Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. County of Westchester, 99 A.D.3d 998, 953 N.Y.S.2d 623 ). 197 A.D.3d 609 Therefore, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, based upon the unambiguous terms of the CBA, there is no provision for retirement benefit......
  • Trazzera v. Trazzera
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 10, 2021
    ...to warrant a hearing on the question of whether he should be awarded expanded parental access with the child (see Castro v Kaminski, 197 A.D.3d 609; Matter of Jackson v Shands, 191 A.D.3d 675; Katsoris v Katsoris, 178 A.D.3d 794, 796). Notwithstanding the defendant's contention that it is o......
  • Trazzera v. Trazzera
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 10, 2021
    ...to warrant a hearing on the question of whether he should be awarded expanded parental access with the child (see Castro v Kaminski, 197 A.D.3d 609; Matter of Jackson v Shands, 191 A.D.3d 675; Katsoris v Katsoris, 178 A.D.3d 794, 796). Notwithstanding the defendant's contention that it is o......
  • Trazzera v. Trazzera
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 10, 2021
    ...to warrant a hearing on the question of whether he should be awarded expanded parental access with the child (see Castro v Kaminski, 197 A.D.3d 609; Matter of Jackson v Shands, 191 A.D.3d 675; Katsoris v Katsoris, 178 A.D.3d 794, 796). Notwithstanding the defendant's contention that it is o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT