From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Coles v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 16, 1999
267 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

December 16, 1999

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Hummel, J.), entered September 29, 1998, which, inter alia, dismissed respondent's applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, to find petitioner in violation of a prior order of visitation.

Wertime, Robinson, Ries Van Ullen (Frederick J. Schreyer of counsel), Cohoes, for appellant.

Larry P. Kivitz, East Greenbush, for respondent.

Charles W. Thomas, Law Guardian, Troy, for Barbara Coles.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


By order entered October 20, 1995, Family Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties' daughter (born in 1990) to petitioner, subject to respondent's right to visitation on alternate weekends and holidays. In 1998, respondent filed two separate violation petitions alleging that petitioner violated the visitation provisions of the 1995 order and seeking a change of custody. Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that respondent had failed to establish a change in circumstances and dismissed the petitions. Respondent appeals and we affirm.

In view of respondent's utter failure to establish a change in circumstances justifying a modification of the existing custody arrangement, Family Court acted well within its discretion in refusing to interview the parties' child. Further, respondent's challenge to Family Court's failure to consider a report of Aaron Hoorwitz has not been preserved for our consideration. Notably, respondent did not offer the report into evidence or make a timely request for an adjournment for the purpose of producing its author. Finally, we note that, despite Family Court's repeated warnings concerning the pitfalls of pro se representation and offers to assign a lawyer to represent respondent free of charge, respondent insisted upon representing himself.

PETERS, SPAIN, CARPINELLO and GRAFFEO, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Coles v. Bailey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 16, 1999
267 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Coles v. Bailey

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DANIELLE COLES, Respondent, v. MILES BAILEY, Appellant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 16, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
700 N.Y.S.2d 281

Citing Cases

In re David VV.

ching inquiry" ( People v. Smith, 92 NY2d 516, 520) before determining that respondent's decision to engage…

In the Matter of Akyuz v. Akyuz

The testimony adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support the Family Court's determination that the…