Opinion
921 Dkt. Nos. V20935–36–12/18E V–20935–36–12/19F Case No. 2022–01394
10-31-2023
In the Matter of JORGE R.C., Petitioner–Respondent, v. JULIETA A.C. also known as Julietta V.B., Respondent–Appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant. Jorge R.C., respondent pro se. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the children.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for appellant.
Jorge R.C., respondent pro se.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, attorney for the children.
Kapnick, J.P., Gesmer, Scarpulla, Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol Goldstein, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a hearing, granted petitioner father's motion to modify the final order of custody and visitation for the parties' children by directing that the father become custodian of the children's passports, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Contrary to respondent mother's assertions, the expedited hearing procedures, imposed during the period when proceedings were conducted virtually during the COVID–19 pandemic, did not deny her due process (see e.g. Matter of Francisco A. v. Amarilis V., 198 A.D.3d 405, 406, 156 N.Y.S.3d 5 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Saymone N. v. Joshua A., 202 A.D.3d 507, 507–508, 163 N.Y.S.3d 42 [1st Dept. 2022] ; see generally Judiciary Law § 2–b[3] ). The court explained the proposed procedures and gave the parties time to consider whether they would consent. The mother then provided her explicit consent. The court imposed time constraints in an even-handed manner as to both parties and conducted the proceedings fairly. The mother fails to identify any way in which the procedures hampered her ability to present her case. Although Family Court did not explicitly state that there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting reevaluation of the final custody and visitation order, the record evidence supports that finding (see Matter of Santiago v. Halbal, 88 A.D.3d 616, 617, 932 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Specifically, the record evidence establishes that, while the mother was the custodian of the children's passports, there were numerous conflicts about the passports and those conflicts had a negative impact on the children (see e.g. Matter of Aly T. v. Francisco B., 146 A.D.3d 425, 425, 45 N.Y.S.3d 34 [1st Dept. 2017] ). The court's determination, that the best interests of the children were served by the father becoming custodian of the passports, is supported by a substantial basis in the record, which showed that the mother had repeatedly withheld the passports (see Yolanda R. v. Eugene I.G., 38 A.D.3d 288, 289, 831 N.Y.S.2d 387 [1st Dept. 2007] ; Matter of Elissa A. v. Samuel B., 123 A.D.3d 638, 639, 999 N.Y.S.2d 76 [1st Dept. 2014] ; see generally Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173–174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ).