In the Matter of Maria Oravec v. Oravec

• Decision Date: 10 November 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08056,89 A.D.3d 1475,932 N.Y.S.2d 655
• Parties: In the Matter of Maria ORAVEC, Petitioner–Respondent–Appellant,v.David A. ORAVEC, Respondent–Petitioner–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

89 A.D.3d 1475

932 N.Y.S.2d 655

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 08056

In the Matter of Maria ORAVEC, Petitioner–Respondent–Appellant,

v.David A. ORAVEC, Respondent–Petitioner–Respondent.

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

Nov. 10, 2011.

Patricia M. McGrath, Lockport, for Petitioner–Respondent–Appellant.Deborah J. Scinta, Attorney for the Children, Kenmore, for Dylan O. and Olivia O.PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner-respondent mother contends on appeal that Family Court should have granted her petition alleging that respondent-petitioner father violated a prior order of custody with respect to the parties' children. The mother further contends that the court should have granted her petition seeking to modify the prior order by, inter alia, awarding her sole custody of the children and erred in granting the father's petition seeking to modify the prior order by, inter alia, awarding him sole custody of the children. We affirm.

The court properly dismissed the violation petition inasmuch as the mother failed to establish that the father willfully violated a clear mandate of the prior order or that his conduct “ ‘defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced’ ” any right or remedy to which she was entitled ( Matter of Petkovsek v. Snyder [appeal No. 2], 251 A.D.2d 1085, 675 N.Y.S.2d 573; see Matter of Maurice H. v. Charity C., 49 A.D.3d 1248, 852 N.Y.S.2d 881). Contrary to the mother's contention concerning the custody determination, we conclude that the court properly considered, as one factor in its determination, “the support that [the father's parents] give[ ] to him and the children, which contributes further stability and emotional comfort to the children's lives” ( Matter of Flynn–Stallmer v. Stallmer, 167 A.D.2d 575, 577, 563 N.Y.S.2d 207, lv. dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 939, 569 N.Y.S.2d 612, 572 N.E.2d 53). The mother failed to preserve for our review her further contention that the court erred in interjecting itself into the hearing by questioning her concerning matters that had not been addressed on direct or cross-examination ( see generally People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886, 887–888, 453 N.Y.S.2d 399, 438 N.E.2d 1114; Matter of Aron B., 46 A.D.3d 1431, 847 N.Y.S.2d 498; Chocolas Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Handelsman, 262 A.D.2d 133, 691 N.Y.S.2d 519). The mother also failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred in admitting in evidence...