Schnock v. Sexton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P.J.
Family Court erred in dismissing the mother’s modification petition without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. A petition to modify an existing custody arrangement must contain factual allegations of a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modification in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Hudson v Eck, 70 AD3d 1261, 1262 [2010]; Matter of Bjork v Bjork, 23 AD3d 784, 785 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 707 [2006]). “While not eveiy petition in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding is automatically entitled to a hearing, [generally an evidentiary hearing is necessary and should be…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Torkildsen v. TorkildsenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Diffin v. TowneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Bjork v. BjorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Christopher B. v. Patricia B.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Twiss v. BrennanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Matter of Coleman v. MillingtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Freedman v. HorikeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Moore v. PalmatierAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Matter of Abigail Y. v. Jerry Z.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Matter of Normile v. StalkerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.