Ingersoll v. Platt
| Decision Date | 30 April 2010 |
| Citation | 899 N.Y.S.2d 517,72 A.D.3d 1560 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Heather A. INGERSOLL, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Lonnie S. PLATT, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
72 A.D.3d 1560
In the Matter of Heather A. INGERSOLL, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
Lonnie S. PLATT, Respondent-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
April 30, 2010.
899 N.Y.S.2d 517
Koslosky & Koslosky, Utica (William L. Koslosky of Counsel), for Respondent-Appellant.
Peter J. DiGiorgio, Jr., Law Guardian, Utica, for Brandon S.P. and Bret M.P.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
72 A.D.3d 1560
Respondent father appeals from an order modifying the parties' existing joint custody arrangement, with physical custody with petitioner mother and visitation with the father, by awarding the mother sole custody of the parties' two children and continuing visitation with the father. We reject the father's contention that the order is not supported by a sound
72 A.D.3d 1561
and substantial basis in the record. Family Court properly determined that there was a substantial change in circumstances that warranted modification of the existing joint custody order in the best interests of the children. The record establishes offensive behavior of the father toward the mother in the presence of the children, his sporadic and often nonexistent exercise of visitation with the children, and his refusal to accept the medical diagnosis of the older child or cooperate with the treatment of that child ( see generally Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Matter of Hurlburt v. Behr, 70 A.D.3d 1266, 897 N.Y.S.2d 271; Matter of Omahen v. Omahen, 64 A.D.3d 975, 882 N.Y.S.2d 558). In addition, the parties' acrimonious relationship and inability to communicate with each other renders the existing joint custody arrangement
inappropriate ( see Omahen, 64 A.D.3d at 975-976, 882 N.Y.S.2d 558; Matter of Betro v. Carbone, 50 A.D.3d 1583, 1584, 857 N.Y.S.2d 406; Matter of Rhubart v. Rhubart, 15 A.D.3d 936, 789 N.Y.S.2d 385). "The determination of the court is entitled to great deference, and where, as here, it is based upon a sound and substantial basis in the record, it will not be disturbed" ( Matter of Lewis R.E. v. Deloris A.E., 37 A.D.3d 1092, 1093, 828 N.Y.S.2d 925).It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
13 cases
-
Krier v. Krier
...N.Y.S.2d 681 [3d Dept. 1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 790, 700 N.Y.S.2d 421, 722 N.E.2d 501 [1999] ; see also Matter of Ingersoll v. Platt , 72 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 899 N.Y.S.2d 517 [4th Dept. 2010] ).178 A.D.3d 1373 Furthermore, we reject the contention of the mother and the AFC that the determi......
-
Robert Q. v. Miranda Q.
...18 N.Y.S.3d 762 [2015] ; Heather B. v. Daniel B., 125 A.D.3d 1157, 1159–1160, 4 N.Y.S.3d 362 [2015] ; Matter of Ingersoll v. Platt, 72 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 899 N.Y.S.2d 517 [2010] ). Turning to the best interests analysis, the testimony presented at the hearing established that the father thr......
-
Lauzonis v. Lauzonis
...262 A.D.2d 804, 805, 691 N.Y.S.2d 681, lv. denied94 N.Y.2d 790, 700 N.Y.S.2d 421, 722 N.E.2d 501; see Matter of Ingersoll v. Platt, 72 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 899 N.Y.S.2d 517). Here, plaintiff asserted in support of his cross motion that there had been a “complete break[ ]down in communication”......
-
Guillermo v. Agramonte, 1356 CAF 14-01002.
...of the court has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (see Matter of Ingersoll v. Platt, 72 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 899 N.Y.S.2d 517 ). We agree with the mother and the Attorney for the Children that the provisions of the order limiting the mother's visitation ......
Request a trial to view additional results