D'Amico v. Corrado, 2013-07286, 2014-01624, 2014-01944, 2014-01948, (Docket No. V-6746-10)

• Decision Date: 03 June 2015
• Docket Number: 2013-07286, 2014-01624, 2014-01944, 2014-01948, (Docket No. V-6746-10)
• Parties: In the Matter of Eileen D'AMICO, respondent, v. Christopher CORRADO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

129 A.D.3d 718
10 N.Y.S.3d 316
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04641

In the Matter of Eileen D'AMICO, respondent
v.
Christopher CORRADO, appellant.

2013-07286, 2014-01624, 2014-01944, 2014-01948, (Docket No. V-6746-10)

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

June 3, 2015.

10 N.Y.S.3d 317

Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Diane C. Carroll, P.C., Melville, N.Y., for respondent.

Paraskevi Zarkadas, Centereach, N.Y., attorney for the child.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Opinion

129 A.D.3d 718

Appeals from three orders of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Bernard Cheng, J.), dated June 19, 2013, January 9, 2014, and January 30, 2014, respectively, and an order of that court (David Fruendlich, J.), dated November 26, 2013. The order dated June 19, 2013, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother's petition to modify a stipulation of settlement dated October 13, 2010, so as to award her sole custody of the subject child, with visitation to the father. The order dated November 26, 2013, in effect, dismissed the father's petition to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the order dated June 19, 2013. The order dated January 9, 2014, in effect, dismissed the father's separate petition to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the order dated June 19, 2013. The order dated January 30, 2014, after a hearing, dismissed the father's separate petitions to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the order dated June 19, 2013.

ORDERED that the appeals from the orders dated November 26, 2013, and January 9, 2014, are dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the orders dated June 19, 2013, and January 30, 2014, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeals from the orders dated November 26, 2013, and January 9, 2014, must be dismissed as abandoned, as the father's brief does not seek reversal or modification of any portion of those orders

10 N.Y.S.3d 318

(see Matter of Pepe v. Pepe, 124 A.D.3d 898, 998 N.Y.S.2d 897 ).

129 A.D.3d 719

“A party seeking the modification of an existing...