Matter of Jeffers v. Hicks
| Decision Date | 10 November 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-10206. |
| Citation | 888 N.Y.S.2d 593,2009 NY Slip Op 08229,67 A.D.3d 800 |
| Parties | In the Matter of PRUDENCE JEFFERS, Appellant, v. ANTHONY HICKS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as relates to Tonisha is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order as relates to Tonisha has been rendered academic because Tonisha is now over the age of 18 and, thus, no longer is a minor subject to an order directing visitation (see Family Ct Act § 119 [c]; 651; see also Matter of Lozada v Pinto, 7 AD3d 801 [2004]).
Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding a modification of visitation (see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673, 673 [2008]; Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]). Here, however, because the Family Court "possesse[d] adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to [Omar's] best interest," a hearing on the issue of a modification of the prior visitation order was unnecessary (Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d at 673). The Family Court was fully familiar with relevant facts regarding the parents and Omar considering, inter alia, the numerous court dates and the relationship between the parties (see Matter of Attallah N., 65 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2009]; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d at 673). Furthermore, the court's determination as to visitation was not an improvident exercise of discretion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sepulveda v. Perez
...an improvident exercise of discretion ( see Matter of Luis O. v. Jessica S., 89 A.D.3d 735, 932 N.Y.S.2d 500; Matter of Jeffers v. Hicks, 67 A.D.3d 800, 801, 888 N.Y.S.2d 593; Matter of Attallah N., 65 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 884 N.Y.S.2d 870; Matter of Perez v. Sepulveda, 51 A.D.3d 673, 673–674......
-
Zaratzian v. Abadir
...Hom v. Zullo, 6 A.D.3d 536, 536, 775 N.Y.S.2d 66;see Matter of Sullivan v. Moore, 95 A.D.3d 1223, 944 N.Y.S.2d 641;Matter of Jeffers v. Hicks, 67 A.D.3d 800, 888 N.Y.S.2d 593). Under the circumstances presented here, the Family Court providentlyexercisedits discretion in granting, without a......
-
Lamarche v. Jessie
...671). "Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding a modification of visitation74 A.D.3d 1342" ( Matter of Jeffers v. Hicks, 67 A.D.3d 800, 801, 888 N.Y.S.2d 593; see Matter of Perez v. Sepulveda, 51 A.D.3d 673, 857 N.Y.S.2d 659). However, "a hearing will not be necessary where......
-
Peralta v. Irrizary
...941, 943, 917 N.Y.S.2d 650; Matter of Weinschneider v. Weinschneider, 73 A.D.3d 1194, 1195, 901 N.Y.S.2d 701; Matter of Jeffers v. Hicks, 67 A.D.3d 800, 801, 888 N.Y.S.2d 593; Matter of Attallah N., 65 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 884 N.Y.S.2d 870), the grandmother satisfied her prima facie burden wi......