Sierak v. Staring
| Decision Date | 02 January 2015 |
| Citation | 1 N.Y.S.3d 696,124 A.D.3d 1397 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Bernadette SIERAK, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Kyle STARING, Respondent–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
124 A.D.3d 1397
1 N.Y.S.3d 696
In the Matter of Bernadette SIERAK, Petitioner–Respondent,
v.
Kyle STARING, Respondent–Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jan. 2, 2015.
Mark A. Wolber, Utica, for Respondent–Appellant.
Koslosky & Koslosky, Utica (William L. Koslosky of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, and SCONIERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent father filed numerous petitions alleging violations of an order of custody and visitation and seeking modification of that order. After petitioner mother moved to dismiss those petitions, the father filed an additional petition seeking to modify the order of custody and visitation, and he relied exclusively on an affidavit he had previously submitted in opposition to the mother's motion to dismiss. In appeal No. 1, the father appeals from the corrected order pursuant to which Family Court, inter alia, granted the mother's motion to dismiss the initial petitions and, sua sponte, dismissed the final petition in the interest of judicial economy. The court also directed the mother's attorney to submit an affidavit and a proposed order directing payment of attorney's fees. In appeal No. 2, the father appeals from the order awarding the mother $3,200 in attorney's fees.
Contrary to the father's contention in appeal No. 1, the court did not err in sua sponte dismissing the final petition to modify custody and visitation in the interest of justice and without a hearing. As noted above, that petition was supported solely by an affidavit already before the court. We thus agree with the
mother that the allegations contained in that petition, including allegations of a change of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forrestel v. Jonkman
...No. 1], 129 A.D.3d 1679, 1679, 12 N.Y.S.3d 424, lv. dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 994, 19 N.Y.S.3d 215, 41 N.E.3d 73 ; Matter of Sierak v. Staring, 124 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 1 N.Y.S.3d 696 ; Matter of Chrysler v. Fabian, 66 A.D.3d 1446, 1447, 885 N.Y.S.2d 861, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 715, 895 N.Y.S.2d 314,......
-
Gworek v. Gworek, 156
..., 114 A.D.3d 1248, 1248, 980 N.Y.S.2d 854 [4th Dept. 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter ofSierak v. Staring , 124 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 1 N.Y.S.3d 696 [4th Dept. 2015] ).We reject the father's further contention in appeal No. 3 that the court erred in modifying the existing o......
-
Wolman v. Shouela
...her motion failed to comply with 22 NYCRR 1400.2 and 1400.3 and Domestic Relations Law § 237(b) (see Matter of Sierak v. Staring , 124 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 1 N.Y.S.3d 696 [4th Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Felix v. Felix , 110 A.D.3d 805, 806, 971 N.Y.S.2d 898 [2d Dept. 2013] ...
-
Strachan v. Gilliam
...of Consilio v. Terrigino, 114 A.D.3d 1248, 1248, 980 N.Y.S.2d 854 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Sierak v. Staring, 124 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 1 N.Y.S.3d 696 ).It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without ...