Matter of Claudio M. v Janet R.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Matter of Claudio M. v Janet R. 2012 NY Slip Op 00837 Decided on February 7, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 7, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
6739

[*1]In re Claudio M., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Janet R., Respondent-Respondent.




Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for respondent.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2010, which dismissed the father's petition for sanctions against respondent mother for violating a court order of visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly dismissed the petition, which alleged that respondent had willfully violated the order of visitation by refusing to drop off the child for two weeks of summer visitation with petitioner to have commenced on August 15, 2010. At the attendant hearing, petitioner conceded that he received respondent's March 3, 2010 letter informing him that she was taking the child on vacation from August 21 through September 5, 2010. Petitioner then notified respondent on April 26, 2010 that pursuant to the order of visitation he wished to exercise his two-week summer visitation at a time that he obviously knew would overlap with respondent's previously-scheduled plans. Under these circumstances, the Family Court was within its discretion in finding that petitioner acted unreasonably and that respondent did not willfully violate the visitation schedule.

We have considered the remainder of petitioner's contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 7, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.