MATTER OF SANCHEZ v. MERCEDES, 172 A.D.3d 1898 (2019)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20190503406
Visitors: 1
Filed: May 03, 2019
Latest Update: May 03, 2019
Summary: It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the fourth ordering paragraph and as modified `the order is affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this Family Court Act article 6 proceeding, petitioner father appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed his petition to modify a prior custody and visitation order. We agree with the father that Family Court improperly conditioned his right to file future petitions to modify the governing cu
Summary: It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the fourth ordering paragraph and as modified `the order is affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In this Family Court Act article 6 proceeding, petitioner father appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed his petition to modify a prior custody and visitation order. We agree with the father that Family Court improperly conditioned his right to file future petitions to modify the governing cus..
More
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the fourth ordering paragraph and as modified `the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this Family Court Act article 6 proceeding, petitioner father appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed his petition to modify a prior custody and visitation order. We agree with the father that Family Court improperly conditioned his right to file future petitions to modify the governing custody and visitation arrangement upon his completion of anger management treatment, and we therefore modify the order accordingly (see Matter of Smith v Loyster, 156 A.D.3d 1490, 1491 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of Vieira v Huff, 83 A.D.3d 1520, 1522 [4th Dept 2011]). Given the father's history of frivolous and vexatious filings in this matter, however, the court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting him from filing any future modification petitions without prior judicial approval (see Matter of Naclerio v Naclerio, 132 A.D.3d 679, 680 [2d Dept 2015]; see generally Carney v Carney, 160 A.D.3d 218, 228 [4th Dept 2018]).
Source: Leagle
