Walter v. Walter
| Decision Date | 18 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 16428/14,2019–03402 |
| Citation | 112 N.Y.S.3d 512 (Mem),178 A.D.3d 991 |
| Parties | Arnold WALTER, Respondent, v. Judy WALTER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
178 A.D.3d 991
112 N.Y.S.3d 512 (Mem)
Arnold WALTER, Respondent,
v.
Judy WALTER, Appellant.
2019–03402
Index No. 16428/14
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—October 29, 2019
December 18, 2019
Fersch LLC, New York, N.Y. (Patricia Fersch of counsel), for appellant.
Wisselman, Harounian & Associates, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y. (Jordan E. Trager of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered January 11, 2018, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margaret Parisi McGowan, J.), dated January 28, 2019. The order,
insofar as appealed from, without a hearing, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to modify a so-ordered stipulation of custody dated April 27, 2012, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce, so as to award him final decision-making authority with respect to the parties' child.
ORDERED that the order dated January 28, 2019, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the appointment of an attorney to represent the interests of the child, and thereafter for a hearing and a new determination of that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to modify the so-ordered stipulation of custody so as to award him final decision-making authority with respect to the child.
The parties have one child, born in February 2005. The parties were divorced by a judgment entered January 11, 2018, which incorporated, but did not merge, a so-ordered stipulation of custody dated April 27, 2012, and a stipulation of settlement dated June 29, 2017. In the stipulation of custody, the parties agreed that they would share joint legal custody of the child, that the plaintiff would have primary residential custody of the
child, and that the defendant would have parenting time. The stipulation of custody further provided, inter alia, that except in cases of emergency, the parties would ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Assad v. Assad
-
Wallkill Med. Dev., LLC v. Catskill Orange Orthopaedics, P.C.
...687, 912 N.Y.S.2d 627 ; see Lewis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 134 A.D.3d 777, 778, 22 N.Y.S.3d 461 ). Here, the Catskill Orange defendants 178 A.D.3d 991 demonstrated, prima facie, that they timely disclosed to Wallkill Medical relevant financial information, including information regarding ......
-
Assad v. Assad
...best interests and welfare of the child" (Greenberg v Greenberg, 144 A.D.3d 625, 629; see Sukul v Sukul, 196 A.D.3d 661; Walter v Walter, 178 A.D.3d 991, 992). "A parent seeking a change of custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing; rather, he or she must make an evidentiary showin......
-
A.L. v. V.T.L.
...is sufficient for the Court to hold a fact-finding hearing on the issue of final decision-making. See Walter v. Walter , 178 A.D.3d 991, 992-993, 112 N.Y.S.3d 512 (2d Dept. 2019) (holding that "the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff......