Frizzell v. Frizzell
| Decision Date | 21 November 1991 |
| Citation | 177 A.D.2d 825,576 N.Y.S.2d 439 |
| Parties | Donald FRIZZELL, Appellant, v. Sara FRIZZELL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Friedman & Manning, P.C. (Michael P. Friedman, of counsel), Delmar, for appellant.
Zubres, D'Agostino, Hoblock & Greisler, P.C. (David M. Siegal, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH and MERCURE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered February 19, 1991, in Albany County, which, inter alia, granted defendant's cross motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' two children.
During May 1989, the parties executed a separation agreement which, inter alia, provided for joint legal custody of the parties' children and granted defendant physical custody, with liberal visitation rights to plaintiff. Plaintiff thereafter commenced this divorce action and, during the pendency thereof, moved for an order granting him temporary custody of the children and preventing defendant from moving to Los Angeles, California. Defendant cross-moved for sole custody of the children and permission to relocate to California to accept employment there. On December 7, 1990, Supreme Court appointed a Law Guardian for the children but, for reasons not disclosed in the record, the Law Guardian did not attend a hearing held on December 19, 1990. Concluding that exceptional circumstances justified placing the children in defendant's custody and permitting them to relocate to California, Supreme Court granted defendant's cross motion. Plaintiff appeals.
We reverse. Although the appointment of a Law Guardian in a custody proceeding is not mandatory (see, Family Ct Act § 249), 1 having exercised its discretion by appointing a Law Guardian, Supreme Court's unexplained decision to hold a hearing without him 12 days later was an abuse of discretion (see, Evans v. Evans, 127 A.D.2d 998, 998-999, 513 N.Y.S.2d 63). Nor did the posthearing appointment of another attorney as "guardian ad litem" allow him to take an active role in ensuring the rights of the children (see, Matter of Sandra XX., 169 A.D.2d 992, 994, 565 N.Y.S.2d 269; Matter of Elizabeth R. [Catherine S.], 155 A.D.2d 666, 668, 548 N.Y.S.2d 55; Matter of Robert W., 109 A.D.2d 623, 486 N.Y.S.2d 1000). Accordingly, Supreme Court's order must be reversed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Machukas v. Wagner
...238 A.D.2d 677, 678, 656 N.Y.S.2d 416, 417; cf., Matter of Miller v. Miller, 220 A.D.2d 133, 644 N.Y.S.2d 579; Frizzell v. Frizzell, 177 A.D.2d 825, 576 N.Y.S.2d 439). The Law Guardian was present during the entire hearing and Family Court complied with her request to take Jonathan's testim......
-
Pascarelli v. Pascarelli
...Guardian is discretionary (see, Blauvelt v Blauvelt, 219 A.D.2d 694; Matter of Del Sordo v Maholsic, 199 A.D.2d 1038, 1039; Frizzell v Frizzell, 177 A.D.2d 825; Matter of Evans v Evans, 127 A.D.2d 998). Although custody is no longer at issue, the issue of visitation is still unresolved. Con......
-
Miller v. Miller
...of the children, Family Court erred in commencing the fact-finding hearing in the Law Guardian's absence (see, Frizzell v. Frizzell, 177 A.D.2d 825, 826, 576 N.Y.S.2d 439; see also, Matter of Van Gorder v. Van Gorder, 188 A.D.2d 1049, 1050, 591 N.Y.S.2d 915; Matter of Baraby v. Baraby, 186 ......
-
Blauvelt v. Blauvelt
...a custody proceeding is discretionary (see, Matter of Del Sordo v. Maholsic, 199 A.D.2d 1038, 1039, 608 N.Y.S.2d 32; Frizzell v. Frizzell, 177 A.D.2d 825, 576 N.Y.S.2d 439; Matter of Evans v. Evans, 127 A.D.2d 998, 513 N.Y.S.2d 63), the court exceeded its authority in appointing Charles Bro......