Matter of Perez v Sepulveda
2008 NY Slip Op 06571 [54 AD3d 347]
August 5, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, September 24, 2008


In the Matter of Benjamin Perez, Respondent,
v
GrisselSepulveda, Appellant.

[*1]Linda Braunsberg, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.

Robin Stone Einbinder, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent

Daniel E. Lubetsky, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom (1) an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated August 1, 2007,which granted the father's motion to suspend two of her scheduled visitation sessions to theextent of directing that the father have uninterrupted time with the parties' child on August 4,2007, and August 18, 2007, and that the parties and the Queens Center for Change arrangemake-up visitation for the mother, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated August 1, 2007,which dismissed her petition alleging violation of an order of visitation.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the first order dated August 1, 2007, as granted thefather's motion to the extent of directing that the father have uninterrupted time with the parties'child on August 4, 2007, and August 18, 2007, is dismissed as academic, without costs ordisbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the first order dated August 1, 2007, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, withoutcosts or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the second order dated August 1, 2007, is affirmed, without costs ordisbursements.[*2]

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Courtpossessed sufficient information to dismiss, without a hearing, the mother's petition allegingviolation of an order of visitation (see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51AD3d 673 [2008];Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d536 [2004]; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.

The imposition of sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), as requested by therespondent and the attorney for the child, is not warranted. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Carni,JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.