Tina X. v. John X.
| Decision Date | 21 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | 523443 |
| Citation | 67 N.Y.S.3d 695,156 A.D.3d 1152 |
| Parties | In the Matter of TINA X., Appellant, v. JOHN X., Respondent. (And Three Other Related Proceedings.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
156 A.D.3d 1152
67 N.Y.S.3d 695
In the Matter of TINA X., Appellant,
v.
JOHN X., Respondent. (And Three Other Related Proceedings.)
523443
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: November 17, 2017
Decided and Entered: December 21, 2017
John J. Raspante, Utica, for appellant.
Donna C. Chin, Ithaca, attorney for the children.
Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Rumsey, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Madison County (Revoir, J.), entered March 15, 2016, which, in three proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, among other things, sanctioned petitioner.
Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the parents of three children (born in 1997, 2000 and 2007). In March 2012, the mother filed petitions seeking to enforce and modify the provisions of a June 2007 stipulated order governing custody and visitation of the children. In November 2012, the father filed a petition seeking modification of the June 2007 order. In September
2013, a settlement conference was conducted by Family Court (McDermott, J.) that resulted in the parties entering into a stipulation, which was ultimately reduced to an order, that modified the 2007 order by providing for joint legal custody, primary physical placement with the father and visitation for the mother. In October 2013, after obtaining new counsel, the mother moved to disqualify Scott Bielicki, the attorney for the children, on the basis of a conflict of interest, and to vacate the September 2013 stipulated order due to the alleged conflict of interest and on the further ground that she had been coerced to enter into the stipulation by fraud, duress or undue influence. The father and Bielicki opposed the motion and sought sanctions against the mother pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1. By order entered in March 2014, Family Court (Revoir, J.) found that there was no conflict of interest precluding Bielicki from serving as the attorney for the children and denied the mother's motion to the extent that it sought vacatur on that basis. This Court affirmed ( 138 A.D.3d 1258, 32 N.Y.S.3d 332 [2016] ). After a hearing on the remaining issues, including whether the mother had been coerced into signing the stipulation, Family Court found that the mother's motion was based on material statements of fact that were false, denied her motion in all respects and imposed sanctions against her, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1(c)(3), in the total amount of $3,500. The mother now appeals.
The mother's sole argument on appeal is that Family Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kristina L. v. Elizabeth M.
-
Matula v. Matula
...to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 (see Wells v. Hodgkins, 150 A.D.3d 1449, 1452, 54 N.Y.S.3d 740 [2017] ; compare Matter of Tina X. v. John X., 156 A.D.3d 1152, 1153–1154, 67 N.Y.S.3d 695 [2017] ; Matter of Flanigan v. Smyth, 148 A.D.3d 1249, 1251, 50 N.Y.S.3d 572 [2017], lv dismissed 29 N.Y.3d 1046, 78 ......
-
Warren Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Jennifer W. (In re Gwenyth V.)
...determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion (see 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 [a], [d]; Matter of Tina X. v. John X. , 156 A.D.3d 1152, 1153, 67 N.Y.S.3d 695 [2017] ; Matter of Flanigan v. Smyth , 148 A.D.3d 1249, 1250–1251, 50 N.Y.S.3d 572 [2017], lv dismissed and denied 29 ......