York v. Zullich

Nov 10, 2011
Versions:89 A.D.3d 1447
932 N.Y.S.2d 637
932 N.Y.2d 637
Bоise/think The user wants to convert a legal document from a set of images/OCR text into clean, semantic HTML. 1. **Analyze the Input:** * Page 1: Starts with the end of a previous case. Then a new case starts: `In the Matter of Harold L.S., an Infant...` which is very short (dismissal of appeal). Then another case starts: `In the Matter of John York, Appellant, v Adrianna Zullich, Respondent.` * Page 2: Continuation of `In the Matter of John York`. * Page 3: End of `In the Matter of John York`. Then another short case `In the Matter of Raymond L. Magara, Jr.` and another `In the Matter of Light Work Visual Studies, Inc.` and finally the start of `In the Matter of Jeffrey Thrall`. * **Main Opinion selection:** The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with а complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” * The document starts with a partial opinion. Then there is a short complete case (Harold L.S.). Then a longer complete case (John York). The prompt provides scrеenshots/OCR for all three pages. * Looking at `In the Matter of John York`, it has a caption and a full memorandum. * `In the Matter of Harold L.S.` is also a complete case but very brief. * Usually, if the user provides multiple pages, they are looking for the most substantial opinion or the one that is “complete” within that sequence. However, `In the Matter of John York` spans pages 1, 2, and 3. `In the Matter of Harold L.S.` is entirely on page 1. * Actually, the instructions say “convert only the MAIN opinion“. `John York` seems to be the most substantial one provided. * Wait, let‘s look at the document as a whole. It‘s a series of appellate court memoranda (N.Y. Appellate Division, Fourth Department, based on the judges). * I will focus on `In the Matter of John York, Appellant, v Adrianna Zullich, Respondent.`. It starts on page 1, continues on page 2, and finishes on page 3. 2. **Extract Case Information (John York):** * Case Name: In the Matter of John York, Appellant, v Adrianna Zullich, Respondent. In the Matter of Adrianna Zullich, Respondent, v John York, Appellant. * Short Name: Matter of York v Zullich * Citation: 932 NYS2d 637 * Docket: Not explicitly provided in the text other than the citation. * Court: NY Appellate Division, Fourth Department (inferred from judges: Peradotto, Carni, Lindley, Sconiers, Green). * Date: The document contains a date “July 26, 2011” for a different case, but the volume/page numbers (1447-1449) suggest a reporter. The citation is [932 NYS2d 637]. This is likely 2011. 3. **Process “In the Matter of John York“:** * Page 1: Starts at the bottom. * Page 2: Main body of the memorandum. * Page 3: Conclusion and judges. 4. **Identify Citations:** * `Matter of Maher v Maher, 1 AD3d 987, 988 [2003]` * `Matter of Dickerson v Robenstein, 68 AD3d 1179, 1179-1180 [2009]` * `Matter of Claflin v Giamporcaro, 75 AD3d 778, 779-780 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]` * `Matter of Ingersoll v Platt, 72 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2010]` * `Matter of Francisco v Francisco, 298 AD2d 925 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 504 [2002]` * `Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]` * `Matter of Moore v Shapiro, 30 AD3d 1054 [2006]` * `Matter of Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]` 5. **Reflow Text and formatting:** * Handle page breaks. * Rejoin hyphenated words: `re- lationship` -> `relationship`, `at- tainment` -> `attainment`, `con- tention` -> `contention`. * Straight quotes. 6. **HTML Structure:** * `
` for Case Information. * ` ` for page breaks (1447, 1448, 1449). * Memorandum text. * Signature block (judges list). Let‘s double check the “Main Opinion” rule. If multiple full opinions are present, typically the first complete one or the one the user likely intended (often the longеst) is chosen. `Harold L.S.` is very short. `John York` is the center-piece. I will provide `John York`. Actually, looking at the layout, these are short memoranda from a reporter. I should pick the one that is most “complete” across the pages provided. `John York` fits this description. **Metadata for York:** Case name: In the Matter of JOHN YORK, Appellant, v ADRIANNA ZULLICH, Respondеnt. In the Matter of ADRIANNA ZULLICH, Respondent, v JOHN YORK, Appellant. Short name: Matter of York v Zullich Citation: 932 NYS2d 637 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: 2011 (based on context of 85 AD3d 1624 being from 2011) - actually, the citation 932 NYS2d 637 is from 2011. Wait, looking at the Harold L.S. case, it is also complete on page 1. However, York is the primary focus of pages 2 and 3. Let‘s check the instruction: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” I‘ll go with `John York`. Refining Citations for York: 1. `Matter of Maher v Maher, 1 AD3d 987, 988 [2003]` -> `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“` (1 AD3d is 3rd Dept, but the rule asks for Bluebook court abbreviation. In NY, AD3d etc are specific to Depts, but the abbreviation is usually N.Y. App. Div.) 2. `Matter of Dickerson v Robenstein, 68 AD3d 1179, 1179-1180 [2009]` 3. `Matter of Claflin v Giamporcaro, 75 AD3d 778, 779-780 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]` 4. `Matter of Ingersoll v Platt, 72 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2010]` 5. `Matter of Francisco v Francisco, 298 AD2d 925 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 504 [2002]` 6. `Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]` (Note: OCR says “Mat Thayer Ennis, [2002]). ter of v 292 AD2d 824“, but the text in screenshot is “Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]“) 7. `Matter of Moore v Shapiro, 30 AD3d 1054 [2006]` 8. `Matter of Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]` Judges: Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Green, JJ. Final verification of text: “Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent father appeals from an amended order that, inter alia, granted the petition of respondent-petitioner mother seeking to modify a prior custody order entered upon the consent of the parties by awarding her sole custody of the parties’ child, with visitation to the father and supervised contact with the stepfather. We affirm. Contrary to the father‘s contention, we cоnclude that the mother met her burden of establishing a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the child warranted a change in custody (see Matter of Maher v Maher, 1 AD3d 987, 988 [2003]). Under the prior consent order, the parties shared residential custody of the child, with the days that the child spent with each parent changing on a weekly basis. That schedule created confusion on the part of the child and school officials and was no longer practical upon the child‘s attainment of school age (see Matter of Dickerson v Robenstein, 68 AD3d 1179, 1179-1180 [2009]; see also Matter of Claflin v Giamporcaro, 75 AD3d 778, 779-780 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]). In addition, the deterioration of the parties’ relationship and thеir inability to coparent renders the existing joint custody arrangement unworkable (see Matter of Ingersoll v Platt, 72 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2010]; Matter of Francisco v Francisco, 298 AD2d 925 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 504 [2002]; Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]). The father does not challenge the merits of Family Court‘s determination that the child‘s best interests are served by an award of sole custody to the mother. The father contends for thе first time on appeal that the court should have dismissed both his own petition and that of the mother based on their failure to mediate and thus that contention is not preserved for our review (see generally Matter of Moore v Shapiro, 30 AD3d 1054 [2006]). In any event, that contention is without merit. The father likewise failed to preserve for our review his contention thаt the court erred in precluding testimony concerning the “Abel test” administered to the stepfather or in failing to hold a Frye hearing with respect to the admissibility of testimony concerning that test. When the father‘s attorney informed the court on the date scheduled for the Frye hearing that he was not prepared to proceed and requested an adjournment, the court ruled that it would entertain a motion to reschedule the Frye hearing in the event that motion papers seeking that relief were submitted by a specified date. The record contains no such motion papers and thus the father failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court should have conducted a Frye heаring to determine the admissibility of evidence concerning the “Abel test” before precluding such evidence (see generally Matter of Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]). Present—Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Green, JJ.” Wait, there is a small typo in my manual check of the Francisco citation: the screenshot says “lv denied 99 NY2d 504 [2002]” and the OCR says same. Also “Matter of Thayer v Ennis” is split оn page 2 in a weird way in the OCR, but visual check confirms it‘s `Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]`. The court abbreviation for NY Appellate Division is “N.Y. App. Div.“. Let‘s start the HTML. One detail: `Matter of Thayer v Ennis` - pinpoint isn‘t there, just starting page. `Matter of Maher v Maher` - cite 1 AD3d 987, pin 988. `Matter of Dickerson v Robenstein` - cite 68 AD3d 1179, pin 1179-1180. `Matter of Claflin v Giamporcaro` - cite 75 AD3d 778, pin 779-780. Subsequent: `lv denied` 15 NY3d 710 (2010). `Matter of Ingersoll v Platt` - cite 72 AD3d 1560, pin 1561. `Matter of ‍‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍Francisco v Francisco` - cite 298 AD2d 925. Subsequent: `lv denied` 99 NY2d 504 (2002). `Matter of Thillman v Mayer` - cite 85 AD3d 1624, pin 1625. Start of John York case is on bottom of page 1447. Body is on 1448. Conclusion is on 1449. I will use 2011 for the date of the York decision based on the adjacent NYS2d citation and the 85 AD3d 1624 citation (which is from 2011). Case Info details: ShortName: Matter of York v Zullich Doсket: [932 NYS2d 637] - wait, usually citation is the reporter. If there‘s no docket number provided in the text (like “No. 11-00123“), I‘ll omit the docket attribute or use the NYS citation if that‘s all there is. But the instructions say docket attribute strips “No.“. I‘ll check if there is a docket in the screenshot. There is not. Just the citation. The court is N.Y. App. Div., 4th Dept. I‘ll use `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. Page 1 start: `` is correct. Actually, the case name is: In the Matter of JOHN YORK, Appellant, v ADRIANNA ZULLICH, Respondent. In the Matter of ADRIANNA ZULLICH, Respondent, v JOHN YORK, Appellant. Short name: Matter of York v Zullich Date: 2011 (The NYS2d citation corresponds to 2011). One more check on the instruction “convert only the MAIN opinion“. Harold L.S. is a full case. John York is a full case. Magara is a full case. Light Work is a full case. Jeffrey Thrall starts. I will interpret “the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body” as the one that spans multiple pages and is the most significant content of the provided document. `John York` is the clear choice here. Citations check: `Matter of Maher v Maher` - 1 AD3d 987, 988 [2003]. `Matter of Dickerson v Robenstein` - 68 AD3d 1179, 1179-1180 [2009]. `Matter of Claflin v Giamporcaro` - 75 AD3d 778, 779-780 [2010], lv deniеd 15 NY3d 710 [2010]. `Matter of Ingersoll v Platt` - 72 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2010]. `Matter of Francisco v Francisco` - 298 AD2d 925 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 504 [2002]. `Matter of Thayer v Ennis` - 292 AD2d 824 [2002]. `Matter of Moore v Shapiro` - 30 AD3d 1054 [2006]. `Matter of Thillman v Mayer` - 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]. Wait, for NY cases, the year is often in brackets [2011]. I should preserve brackets in the inner text but use the year in the `date` attribute. Let‘s begin. Case Info: - midpage-case-name: In the Matter of JOHN YORK, Appellant, v ADRIANNA ZULLICH, Respоndent. In the Matter of ADRIANNA ZULLICH, Respondent, v JOHN YORK, Appellant. - midpage-citation: 932 NYS2d 637 - midpage-court: N.Y. App. Div. - midpage-date: 2011 Text: “Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent father appeals from an” (bottom of 1447) “amended order...” (top of 1448) Rejoining “at- tainment” to “attainment“, “re- lationship” to “relationship“, etc. Correctly formatting citations. Example for Claflin: (see Matter of Claflin v Giamporcaro, 75 AD3d 778, 779-780 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]) Wait, Bluebook for NY Court of Appeals is N.Y. For Appellate Division is N.Y. App. Div. Maher: 1 AD3d 987 (2003) -> 3rd Dept. Dickerson: 68 AD3d 1179 (2009) -> 3rd Dept. Claflin: 75 AD3d 778 (2010) -> 3rd Dept. Ingersoll: 72 AD3d 1560 (2010) -> 4th Dept. Francisco: 298 AD2d 925 (2002) -> 4th Dept. Thayer: 292 AD2d 824 (2002) -> 4th Dept. Moore: 30 AD3d 1054 (2006) -> 4th Dept. Thillman: 85 AD3d 1624 (2011) -> 4th Dept. I will use N.Y. App. Div. as the court for all of these per standard shorthand. Page 1 starts with 1447. Case Info. Wait, page 1 screenshot shows `1447` at the top. Page 2 shows `1448` at the top. Page 3 shows `1449` at the top. Case York starts at bottom of 1447. ```html

Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent father appeals from an amended order that, inter alia, granted the petition of respondent-petitioner mother seeking to modify a prior custody order entered upon the consent of the parties by awarding her sole custody of the parties’ child, with visitation to the father and supervised contact with the stepfather. We affirm. Contrary to the father‘s contention, we conclude that the mother met her burden of establishing а change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the child warranted a change in custody (see Matter of Maher v Maher, 1 AD3d 987, 988 [2003]). Under the prior consent order, the parties shared residential custody of the child, with the days that the child spent with each parent changing on a weekly basis. ‍‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍That schedule created confusion on the part of the сhild and school officials and was no longer practical upon the child‘s attainment of school age (see Matter of Dickerson v Robenstein, 68 AD3d 1179, 1179-1180 [2009]; see also Matter of Claflin v Giamporcaro, 75 AD3d 778, 779-780 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]). In addition, the deterioration of the parties’ relationship and their inability to coparent renders the existing joint custody arrangement unworkable (see Matter of Ingersoll v Platt, 72 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2010]; Matter of Francisco v Francisco, 298 AD2d 925 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 504 [2002]; Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]). The father does not challenge the merits of Family Court‘s determination that the сhild‘s best interests are served by an award of sole custody to the mother.

The father contends for the first time on appeal that the court should have dismissed both his own petition and that of ‍‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍the mother based on their failure to mediate and thus that contention is not preserved for our review (see generally Matter of Moore v Shapiro, 30 AD3d 1054 [2006]). In any event, that contention is without merit. The father likewise failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in precluding testimony concerning the “Abel test” administered to the stepfather or in failing to hold a Frye hearing with respect to the admissibility of testimony concerning that test. When the father‘s attorney informed the court on the date scheduled for the Frye hearing that he was nоt prepared to proceed and requested an adjournment, the court ruled that it would entertain a motion to reschedule the Frye hearing in the event that motion papers seeking that relief were submitted by a specified date. The record contains no such motion papers and thus the father failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court should have conducted a Frye hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence concerning the “Abel test” before precluding such evidence (see generally Matter of Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]). Present—Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Green, JJ.

``` Wait, looking at the York case on page 1447, the citation is `[932 NYS2d 637]`. One small correction: `Matter of Claflin v Giamрorcaro` has brackets `[2010]`. Also, in Maher: `1 AD3d 987, 988 [2003]`. I will preserve brackets in the inner text. Also, re-check page boundaries. York case starts on 1447. “Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent father appeals from an” is on 1447. “amended order...” is on 1448. “Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]). Present—” is on 1449. “Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Green, JJ.” is on 1449. I will put the page break for 1448 after “from an“. I will рut the page break for 1449 after `[2011]).`. Also, I should ensure the case name in `midpage-case-name` and `midpage-case` tag attributes are normalized. Case Name: In the Matter of JOHN YORK, Appellant, v ADRIANNA ZULLICH, Respondent. In the Matter of ADRIANNA ZULLICH, Respondent, v JOHN YORK, Appellant. Short Name: Matter of York v Zullich Wait, in the citation for Maher, is it Maher v. Maher or Matter of Maher v. Maher? The text says `Matter of Maher v Maher`. Actually, `Matter of York v Zullich` is standard shorthand. Final check on Judges: Present—Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Green, JJ. One thing: `Matter of Thayer v Ennis` cite is `292 AD2d 824`. No pinpoint. `Matter of Francisco v Francisco` cite is `298 AD2d 925`. No pinpoint. `Matter of Moore v Shapiro` cite is `30 AD3d 1054`. No pinpoint. Everything seems in order. I will output only the York case. Wait, looking at page 1447 again. There is a full case `Matter of Harold L.S., an Infant`. Should I include it? The instruction: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Usually, if there are multiple short memoranda, they are all opinions. But York is clearly the “Main” one if we have to choosе one that is substantive. However, if the PDF is just a sequence of short opinions, choosing the one that represents the bulk of the content provided (York) is the best interpretation of “MAIN opinion“. Actually, let‘s look at the instructions again: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous cаse that appears at the beginning of the document.” This implies if a page starts with the tail end of Opinion A, then has full Opinion B, then starts Opinion C, you should give Opinion B. In this document: - Tail end of case (Bergman) - Case Harold L.S. (Full) - Case John York (Full) - Case Magara (Full) - ‍‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‍Case Light Work (Full) - Case Jeffrey Thrall (Partial) Which is the “MAIN“? York is the longest. If I can only pick one, York is the best choice. If thе instructions meant “convert all complete opinions“, they would likely have said so. “convert only the MAIN opinion” strongly suggests picking the most significant one. Let‘s double check the Harold L.S. case. It is literally 10 lines. York case is approx 1.5 pages. York is the main opinion. One last check on citations. `Matter of Maher v Maher, 1 AD3d 987, 988 [2003]` `Matter of Dickerson v Rоbenstein, 68 AD3d 1179, 1179-1180 [2009]` `Matter of Claflin v Giamporcaro, 75 AD3d 778, 779-780 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]` `Matter of Ingersoll v Platt, 72 AD3d 1560, 1561 [2010]` `Matter of Francisco v Francisco, 298 AD2d 925 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 504 [2002]` `Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]` `Matter of Moore v Shapiro, 30 AD3d 1054 [2006]` `Matter of Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]` Bluebook court for NY Appellate Division: N.Y. App. Div. Bluebook court for NY Court of Appeals (lv denied): N.Y. Everything ready. One detail: in York‘s text: “The record contаins no such motion papers and thus the father failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court should have conducted a Frye hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence concerning the “Abel test” before precluding such evidence (see generally Matter of Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]).” The sentence “Present—Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Green, JJ.” is the signature/judge block for the case. Wait, page 1447 ends with: “Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent father appeals from an“. Page 1448 starts with: “amended order that, inter alia, granted the petition of“. Page 1448 ends with: “test” before precluding such evidence (see generally Matter of“. Page 1449 starts with: “Thillman v Mayer, 85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]). Present—“. I‘ll place markers accordingly. Final check on straight quotes. Source: “Abel test” -> “Abel test” Source: Frye hearing -> Frye hearing Source: “Abel test” -> “Abel test” One more check on cite `lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]`. The 15 NY3d 710 cite is for the case `Matter of Claflin v. Giamporcaro`. I should link it to that case. One more check on `Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]`. OCR for page 2 has some errors here: `Mat Thayer Ennis, [2002]). ter of v 292 AD2d 824`. I will ignore OCR and follow visual. It‘s `Matter of Thayer v Ennis, 292 AD2d 824 [2002]`. Ready.