Pignataro v. Davis

Decision Date14 June 2004
Docket Number2003-09390.
Citation8 A.D.3d 487,2004 NY Slip Op 05250,778 N.Y.S.2d 528
PartiesIn the Matter of LISA PIGNATARO, Appellant, v. GLEN DAVIS, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties both filed petitions for custody of the subject child. By order of the Family Court dated May 14, 2002, after a more than two-year trial, the father was awarded custody of the child with visitation to the mother.

Shortly thereafter, the mother filed the three petitions relevant to this appeal. The first two alleged various violations of the order dated May 14, 2002. The third petition, in effect, amplified and particularized the violations alleged in the prior two petitions, and sought a modification of custody. All three petitions demonstrated the mother's continuing hostility toward the father, and her propensity for commencing litigation over minor infractions. After examining the parties, the Family Court dismissed the petitions and prohibited the mother from filing any further petitions or motions regarding custody or visitation without its prior written permission. We affirm.

Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of Dow v Dow, 306 AD2d 529, 530 [2003]). A full evidentiary hearing is not automatically necessary whenever a parent seeks modification of a custody order (see Matter of Jackson v Gangi, 277 AD2d 383, 384 [2000]; Matter of Wurmlinger v Freer, 256 AD2d 1069 [1998]). In the petition dated July 25, 2003, for a modification of the custody order the mother failed to allege a change in circumstances, and, therefore, no hearing was warranted (see Matter of Jackson v Gangi, supra). Moreover, the Family Court recently presided over the parties' custody trial,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
  • Alvarez v. Alvarez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 26, 2014
    ...90 A.D.3d 1046, 935 N.Y.S.2d 343;Matter of Joseph F. v. Patricia F., 32 A.D.3d 938, 939, 821 N.Y.S.2d 625;Matter of Pignataro v. Davis, 8 A.D.3d 487, 488, 778 N.Y.S.2d 528;Smoczkiewicz v. Smoczkiewicz, 2 A.D.3d 705, 706, 770 N.Y.S.2d 101). In determining the child's best interests, the cour......
  • Newmexico v. R.G.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 2, 2014
    ...for contempt in relation to an Order of Visitation, the Court must consider the child's best interests. See Pignataro v. Davis, 8 A.D.3d 487, 778 N.Y.S.2d 528 (2d Dept.2004). Here, the appropriate remedy is a period of make-up visitation. See Vasquez v. Vasquez, 281 A.D.2d 301, 722 N.Y.S.2d......
  • Ross v. Ross
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 13, 2012
    ...such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child” (Matter of Pignataro v. Davis, 8 A.D.3d 487, 488, 778 N.Y.S.2d 528;see Matter of Gurewich v. Gurewich, 58 A.D.3d 628, 872 N.Y.S.2d 141;Matter of Fallarino v. Ayala, 41 A.D.3d 714, 838 N.Y.......
  • Ritchie v. Ritchie
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 12, 2020
    ...vexatious litigation" ( Carney v. Carney , 160 A.D.3d 218, 228, 73 N.Y.S.3d 694 [4th Dept. 2018] ; see Matter of Pignataro v. Davis , 8 A.D.3d 487, 489, 778 N.Y.S.2d 528 [2d Dept. 2004] ). We further note that the mother "is not without recourse should she actually be the victim of spousal ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT