From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strand–O'Shea v. Kraemer

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 13, 2012
949 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-06-13

In the Matter of Cathleen STRAND–O'SHEA, respondent, v. William KRAEMER, appellant. (Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2). In the Matter of William Kraemer, appellant, v. Cathleen Strand–O'Shea, respondent. (Proceeding Nos. 3 and 4).

Glen A. Suarez, Huntington, N.Y., for appellant. Debra A. Byrnes, Centereach, N.Y., attorney for the child.



Glen A. Suarez, Huntington, N.Y., for appellant. Debra A. Byrnes, Centereach, N.Y., attorney for the child.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In four related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated February 17, 2010, as dismissed (a) his petition to modify a prior order of the same court dated November 6, 2007, inter alia, awarding the mother sole custody of the parties' child, so as to award sole custody of the subject child to him, and (b) his separate petition to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation schedule set forth in the prior order.

ORDERED that the order dated February 17, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child’ ” (Matter of Ross v. Ross, 86 A.D.3d 615, 616, 928 N.Y.S.2d 303, quoting Matter of Pignataro v. Davis, 8 A.D.3d 487, 488, 778 N.Y.S.2d 528;seeFamily Ct. Act § 652; Matter of Buxenbaum v. Fulmer, 82 A.D.3d 1223, 1223, 919 N.Y.S.2d 389;Matter of Gallo v. Gallo, 81 A.D.3d 826, 827, 916 N.Y.S.2d 800;Matter of Watson v. Smith, 52 A.D.3d 615, 616, 861 N.Y.S.2d 354). Here, the Family Court properly dismissed the father's petition to modify a prior order so as to award sole custody of the subject child to him, as he failed to demonstrate the requisite change in circumstances.

Moreover, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the father's petition to hold the mother in contempt for violating the visitation provisions of the prior order, which awarded custody to the mother and visitation to him ( see generally Matter of Philie v. Singer, 79 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 913 N.Y.S.2d 745;Matter of Kraemer v. Strand–O'Shea, 66 A.D.3d 901, 901, 886 N.Y.S.2d 641).


Summaries of

Strand–O'Shea v. Kraemer

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 13, 2012
949 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Strand–O'Shea v. Kraemer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Cathleen STRAND–O'SHEA, respondent, v. William KRAEMER…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 13, 2012

Citations

949 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
96 A.D.3d 862
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4763

Citing Cases

Tori v. Tori

The Family Court did not err in granting the father's petition to modify the order of custody so as to award…