Dorsa v. Dorsa
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
“A modification of an existing custody arrangement should be allowed only upon a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change of custody in order to insure the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nava v Kinsler, 85 AD3d 1186, 1186 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 714 [2011]; see Family Ct Act § 652; Matter of Said v Said, 61 AD3d 879, 880 [2009]; Matter of Manfredo v Manfredo, 53 AD3d 498, 499 [2008]; cf. Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). In determining the best interests of the children, courts must view the “ ‘totality of [the] circumstances’ ”…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Eschbach v. EschbachNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Friederwitzer v. FriederwitzerNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Nava v. KinslerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Manfredo v. ManfredoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Said v. SaidAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Casarotti v. CasarottiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Rulinsky v. WestAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Cole v. NofriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Luo v. YangAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Sirabella v. SirabellaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.