| Matter of Wieser v Wieser |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03253 [83 AD3d 950] |
| April 19, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jamie L. Wieser, Respondent, v Robert C.Wieser, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kevin G. McClancy, Central Islip, N.Y., for respondent. Linda S. Morrison, Commack, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limitedby his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), datedMay 18, 2010, as denied those branches of his motion which were to impose sanctions upon themother pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, to enjoin the mother from filing further petitions tomodify custody or visitation without permission of the court, and to direct the mother to submitto psychological and alcohol evaluations.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the mother.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion indenying that branch of his motion which was to impose sanctions upon the mother. The fatherfailed to demonstrate that the mother's conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR130-1.1 (c) (see Kaplon-Belo Assoc.,Inc. v D'Angelo, 79 AD3d 931 [2010]; Joan 2000, Ltd. v Deco Constr. Corp., 66 AD3d 841, 842 [2009];cf. Mascia v Maresco, 39 AD3d504, 505-506 [2007]; Greene vDoral Conference Ctr. Assoc., 18 AD3d 429, 430-431 [2005]).
While public policy generally mandates free access to the courts (see Board of Educ. ofFarmingdale Union Free School Dist. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., Local 1889,AFT AFL-CIO, 38 NY2d 397, 404 [1975]), a party may forfeit that right if he or she abusesthe judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will (see Matter of Reiss v Giraldo, 77AD3d 759, 759 [2010]; Matter ofMolinari v Tuthill, 59 AD3d 722, 723 [2009]; Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487, 489 [2004]; Matterof Shreve v Shreve, 229 AD2d 1005, 1006 [1996]). Here, the mother did not abuse thejudicial process by filing a petition to modify a visitation order and a petition for a violation ofthe order (cf. Matter of Manwani v Manwani, 286 AD2d 767, 768 [2001]; Matter ofShreve v Shreve, 229 AD2d at 1006). Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercisedits discretion in denying that branch of the father's motion which was to enjoin the mother fromfiling further petitions to modify custody or visitation without permission of the court.[*2]
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.Skelos, J.P., Belen, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.