Matter of Reese v. Jones
| Decision Date | 15 December 2000 |
| Citation | 720 N.Y.S.2d 583,279 A.D.2d 939 |
| Parties | (A.D. 3 Dept. 2001) In the Matter of BRADLEY R. REESE, Appellant, v. DENISE JONES, Respondent. 87937 Calendar Date: |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams P.C. (Bruce J. Wagner of counsel), Albany, for appellant.
Friedman & Manning P.C. (Stephen L. Molinsek of counsel), Delmar, for respondent.
Richard A. Hanft, Law Guardian, Troy, for Jordan Devon Jones Reese.
Before: Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Maney, J.), entered March 5, 1999, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for modification of a prior order of custody/visitation.
The parties are the parents of a son, now 11 years old; petitioner resides in Florida and respondent resides in Albany County. The instant proceeding is the third attempt by petitioner to spend alternate Christmas eves and Christmas days with the child. The issue of where the child should spend this holiday was fully litigated in 1995. Following a hearing at that time, Family Court ordered that the child spend Christmas eve and Christmas day with respondent every year and December 27 through January 2 with petitioner every year.
In August 1997, petitioner unsuccessfully sought to modify this specific provision, arguing at that time that a change in circumstances warranted modification of visitation (Matter of Reese v Jones, 249 AD2d 676). Specifically, petitioner claimed in the 1997 petition that a meaningful relationship continued to develop between himself and the child which necessitated more visitation on a regular basis, including this particular holiday. His argument in support of modification was expanded upon in two appearances before Family Court on September 10, 1997 and September 23, 1997, respectively. On those occasions, petitioner's counsel (who continues to represent him in this proceeding) argued that the change in circumstances necessitating modification included the child's increased age and geographical distance between the two and his client's right to partake in an important event in his child's life (Christmas). Petitioner's counsel further pointed out in those proceedings that petitioner was engaged to marry a Roman Catholic woman and lives near a church (petitioner is Jewish). In affirming Family Court's dismissal of the 1997 modification petition, we noted that petitioner's general allegations "that modification was appropriate based upon [the child's] age and developing relationship with his father" did not rise to the level of a sufficient change in circumstances requiring modification in the best interest of the child (id., at 677).
A mere 18 months after filing the first modification...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Phelps v. La Point
...Family Court's intimate familiarity with the history of a particular case can aid in the resolution of issues (see, e.g., Matter of Reese v Jones, 279 A.D.2d 939; Matter of Coutsoukis v Samora, 265 A.D.2d 482). Indeed, this Court has previously found that a "trial court's long-standing fami......
- MATTER OF REESE v. Jones