Timothy RR. v. Peggy SS., 531502

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtColangelo, J.
Citation198 A.D.3d 1138,157 N.Y.S.3d 125
Parties In the Matter of TIMOTHY RR., Respondent, v. PEGGY SS., Appellant. (And Three Other Related Proceedings.)
Docket Number531502
Decision Date21 October 2021

198 A.D.3d 1138
157 N.Y.S.3d 125

In the Matter of TIMOTHY RR., Respondent,
PEGGY SS., Appellant.

(And Three Other Related Proceedings.)


Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: September 13, 2021
Decided and Entered: October 21, 2021

157 N.Y.S.3d 126

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

Law Offices of Jared K. Hart, Kauneonga Lake (Jared K. Hart of counsel), for respondent.

Ivy M. Schildkraut, Rock Hill, attorney for the children.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.


Colangelo, J.

198 A.D.3d 1138

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (Meddaugh, J.), entered May 15, 2020, which, among other things, granted petitioner's applications, in three proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody and visitation.

Petitioner (hereinafter the father) and respondent (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of a son and a daughter (born in 2005 and 2008, respectively). Pursuant to an August 2014 order of custody, the parties shared joint legal custody of the children, with the mother having primary physical custody and the father having

157 N.Y.S.3d 127

parenting time on alternate weekends, certain holidays and one week in the summer. In June 2019, the father filed a modification petition seeking to increase his parenting time and a violation petition alleging, among other things, that the mother had impeded his communication and parenting time with the children in violation of the prior order. Thereafter, the father filed two amended custody modification petitions, both seeking sole custody of the children with parenting time to the mother. Family Court conducted a consolidated fact-finding hearing on the petitions and a Lincoln hearing with both children. The court found that the father demonstrated a change in circumstances since the entry of the prior order and that modification of the order to an award of sole custody to the father was necessary to ensure the best interests of the children. By order entered May 15, 2020, Family Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children to the father with parenting time to the mother. The mother appeals, and we affirm.1

"A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order must first show that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the existing custody order that then warrants an inquiry into what custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child[ren]" ( Matter of Anthony YY. v. Emily ZZ., 189 A.D.3d 1924, 1924, 138 N.Y.S.3d 265 [2020] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Amanda I. v. Michael I., 185 A.D.3d 1252, 1254, 128 N.Y.S.3d 300 [2020] ; Matter of Kanya J. v. Christopher K., 175 A.D.3d 760, 761, 108 N.Y.S.3d 474 [2019], lvs denied 34 N.Y.3d 905, 906, 115 N.Y.S.3d 773, 139 N.E.3d 394 [2019] ). The evidence at the fact-finding hearing

198 A.D.3d 1139

established that, prior to January 2019, the mother was allowing the father to have parenting time as provided in the order, but consistently refused to allow the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • David JJ. v. Verna–Lee KK.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 7, 2022
    ...1267, 1267–1268, 159 N.Y.S.3d 175 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Timothy RR. v. Peggy SS., 198 A.D.3d 1138, 1138, 157 N.Y.S.3d 125 [2021] ). "A change in circumstances is demonstrated through new developments or changes that have occurred since the pr......
  • Shanahan v. Justice Ctr. for the Prot. of People With Special Needs
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 21, 2021
    ...v. New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 151 A.D.3d 1438, 1440–1441, 58 N.Y.S.3d 682 [2017] ).157 N.Y.S.3d 125 Petitioner further contends that the failure of the service recipient and the investigator who conducted the investigation to testify at the ......

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