Rosenstock v. Rosenstock
| Decision Date | 12 April 2017 |
| Citation | 51 N.Y.S.3d 593,149 A.D.3d 887 |
| Parties | Adam ROSENSTOCK, respondent, v. Natalya ROSENSTOCK, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
149 A.D.3d 887
51 N.Y.S.3d 593
Adam ROSENSTOCK, respondent,
v.
Natalya ROSENSTOCK, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
April 12, 2017.
Robert Marinelli, New York, NY, for appellant.
Adam Rosenstock, River Edge, New Jersey, respondent pro se.
Brad M. Nacht, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the children.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeals by the mother from five orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rachel A. Adams, J.), dated October 7, 2014 (two orders), October 23, 2014, and October 24, 2014 (two orders). The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the father's motion which was for pendente lite relief to the extent of directing the mother to pay temporary child support and 20% of unreimbursed medical and child care expenses. The second order, insofar as appealed from, denied the mother's cross motion to vacate an order of protection dated February 27, 2014. The third order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the father's motion which were to direct the mother to pay pendente lite child support arrears, to preclude the mother from offering specified evidence at trial, and to find the mother in violation of the order of protection dated February 27, 2014. The fourth order committed the mother to a term of incarceration of six days, and suspended the sentence subject to her future compliance with the February 27, 2014, order of protection. The fifth order granted that branch of the father's motion which was for an award of attorneys' fees.
ORDERED that the first, second, and third orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the fourth and fifth orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties were married in 2009 and have two children. In 2011, the father commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. In an order dated September 13, 2011, the parties stipulated that the mother would have custody of the children and the father would have visitation every Thursday and every other weekend. In an order dated September 10, 2012, after a hearing, the Supreme Court found the mother in contempt for failing to comply with the visitation schedule. After the mother failed to purge herself of the contempt by complying with the visitation schedule, the court, in an order dated January 11, 2013, awarded the father temporary custody of the children. In February 2013, the father moved by order to show cause for an order of protection. In an order of protection dated February 27, 2014, the court, after a hearing, directed the mother, inter alia, to stay away from
the father and the children and refrain from contacting them electronically, subject to subsequent orders of visitation.
Between February 18, 2014, and August...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silla v. Silla
...of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 are matters within the sound discretion of the motion court" (Rosenstock v Rosenstock, 149 A.D.3d 887, 888 [2d Dept 2017]; see also Isaacs v Isaacs, 71 A.D.3d 951, 952 [2d Dept 2010]; Lotardo v Lotardo, 31 A.D.3d 504, 505 [2d Dept 2006]). W......
-
Washington v. Washington
...family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26[1], [3] ; Family Ct Act § 812[1] ; Rosenstock v. Rosenstock, 149 A.D.3d 887, 889, 51 N.Y.S.3d 593 ; Matter of Sommella v. Kimble, 150 A.D.3d 1018, 1019, 55 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; Matter of Salazar v. Melendez, 97 A.D.3d 754, ......
-
Greim v. Greim
...such as where a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or justice otherwise requires" ( Rosenstock v. Rosenstock, 149 A.D.3d 887, 888, 51 N.Y.S.3d 593 ; see Vistocco v. Jardine, 116 A.D.3d 842, 843, 985 N.Y.S.2d 578 ). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercis......
-
M.B. v. L.T.
...of conduct that alarmed or seriously annoyed her and served no legitimate purpose (see Penal Law § 240.26[3] ; Rosenstock v. Rosenstock, 149 A.D.3d 887, 51 N.Y.S.3d 593 ; Matter of Zhou Hong Zheng v. Hsin Cheng, 144 A.D.3d 1166, 42 N.Y.S.3d 290 ). Although the father alleges that the mother......