Cook v. Cook
| Citation | 142 A.D.3d 530,36 N.Y.S.3d 222,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05743 |
| Parties | Donald J. COOK, respondent-appellant, v. Lynn A. COOK, appellant-respondent. |
| Decision Date | 10 August 2016 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
142 A.D.3d 530
36 N.Y.S.3d 222
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05743
Donald J. COOK, respondent-appellant,
v.
Lynn A. COOK, appellant-respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug. 10, 2016.
Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City, NY (Steven R. Schlesinger, Jeffrey D. Lebowitz, Katharine E. O'Dette, and Marissa J. Pullano of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Campagna Johnson, P.C., Hauppauge, NY (Thomas K. Campagna and Nicholas E. Arazoza of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Catherine Miller, Hauppauge, NY, attorney for the children.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeal by the mother from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Carol MacKenzie, J.), dated July 23, 2015, and appeal by the mother and cross appeal by the father from an order of that court dated August 18, 2015. The order dated July 23, 2015, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the mother's motion which was to appoint a forensic evaluator to conduct an evaluation of the parties and their children. The order dated August 18, 2015, insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, after a hearing, granted that branch of the father's petition which was to modify a settlement agreement dated May 3, 2012, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce dated September 25, 2012, so as to award him residential custody of the parties' child Jonathan, denied that branch of the father's petition which
was to modify the custody terms of the settlement agreement so as to award him residential custody of the parties' child Madison, and granted that branch of the father's motion which was to hold the mother in civil contempt for violating certain provisions of the settlement agreement and of a so-ordered stipulation of settlement dated August 8, 2013, regarding the father's telephone communication with the parties' children.
ORDERED that the order dated July 23, 2015, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated August 18, 2015, is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the father's motion which was to hold the mother in civil contempt for violating certain provisions of the settlement
agreement dated May 3, 2012, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce dated September 25, 2012, and of the so-ordered stipulation of settlement, dated August 8, 2013, regarding the father's telephone communication with the parties' children, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion, and (2) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the father's petition which was to modify the settlement agreement so as to award him residential custody of the parties' child Madison, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the petition; as so modified, the order dated August 18, 2015, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings to establish an appropriate visitation schedule for the mother with the parties' child Madison; and it is further,
ORDERED that pending the new determination, the mother shall have the same visitation schedule with the parties' child Madison as she currently has with the parties' child Jonathan.
The parties have two children, a son, Jonathan, born in May 2002, and a daughter, Madison, born in July 2005. In a settlement agreement dated May 3, 2012, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce dated September 25, 2012, the parties agreed that they would share joint legal custody of the children, that the mother would have primary residential custody of the children, and that the father would have visitation. The settlement agreement provided, inter alia, that “[e]ach party shall have the right to communicate with the children by telephone at all reasonable times and for reasonable periods of time when the children [are] with the other party and neither party shall interfere with or restrict
or impair such right of communication.” The parties thereafter entered into a stipulation of settlement, dated August 8, 2013, which was so-ordered by the Supreme Court, which provided, inter alia, that “the parties agree to promote and encourage communication, via telephone or otherwise, between the children and the other parent.”
On or about April 23, 2015, the father filed a petition in the Family Court, Suffolk County, inter alia, to modify the custody provisions of the settlement agreement so as to award him sole custody of the children, with visitation to the mother. On or about June 4, 2015, the mother moved in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, inter alia, to modify the custody provisions of the settlement agreement so as to award her sole custody of the children, with supervised visitation to the father, to consolidate the Family Court proceeding with the Supreme Court action, and for the appointment of a forensic evaluator to conduct evaluations of the parties and the children. Thereafter, the father moved in the Supreme Court, inter alia, to hold the mother in civil contempt for violating the provisions of the settlement agreement and the so-ordered stipulation of settlement directing that the parties had the right to communicate with the children by telephone at all reasonable times, that neither party shall interfere with, restrict, or impair such right of communication, and that the parties should promote and encourage communication between the children and the other parent.
In an order dated July 23, 2015, the Supreme Court, inter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pandis v. Lapas, 2018-09523
...information to render an informed decision regarding custody consistent with the subject children's best interests" ( Cook v. Cook , 142 A.D.3d 530, 533, 36 N.Y.S.3d 222 ; see Matter of Samuel v. Sowers , 162 A.D.3d 674, 675, 78 N.Y.S.3d 231 ; Matter of Keyes v. Watson , 133 A.D.3d 757, 758......
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...301 ; see Rowe v. NYCPD, 85 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 926 N.Y.S.2d 121 ; Gonzalez v. Vigo Constr. Corp., 69 A.D.3d 565, 566, 892 N.Y.S.2d 194 ). 142 A.D.3d 530 A motion for leave to renew “is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first fac......
-
Oyefeso v. Sully
...53 A.D.3d 498, 500, 861 N.Y.S.2d 399, quoting Matter of McMillian v. Rizzo, 31 A.D.3d 555, 555, 817 N.Y.S.2d 679 ; see Cook v. Cook, 142 A.D.3d 530, 533, 36 N.Y.S.3d 222 )."Weighing the factors relevant to any custody determination requires an evaluation of the credibility and sincerity of ......
-
Greim v. Greim, 2018-13361
...159, 811 N.E.2d 526, quoting Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 95, 447 N.Y.S.2d 893, 432 N.E.2d 765(1982) ; see Cook v. Cook, 142 A.D.3d 530, 533, 36 N.Y.S.3d 222 ; Cuccurullo v. Cuccurullo, 21 A.D.3d 983, 984, 801 N.Y.S.2d 360 ). Since any determination 113 N.Y.S.3d 579 related......