Arelis Carmen S. v. Daniel H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arelis Carmen S. v. Daniel H.

78 A.D.3d 504, 911 N.Y.S.2d 49

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Ivy I. Cook, Ref.), entered on or about July 13, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted the petition to the extent of suspending visitation between respondent father and his under-18-year-old male child until further order of the court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The best interests of a child, which is the foremost consideration in matters of custody and visitation, is within the discretion of the hearing court whose determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial evidentiary basis (Corsell v Corsell, 101 AD2d 766, 767 [1984]). There is an evidentiary basis here for the court’s finding that unsupervised visitation would have a negative impact on the child’s well-being (see Matter of Frank M. v Donna W., 44 AD3d 495 [2007]). Respondent refused an offer of supervised visitation. Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in suspending his visitation. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Family Court, New York County (Ivy I. Cook, Ref.), entered on or about July 13, 2009, which, after a hearing, granted the petition to the extent of suspending visitation between respondent father and his under-18-year-old male child until further order of the court, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The best interests of a child, which is the foremost consideration in matters of custody and visitation, is within the discretion of the hearing court whose determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial evidentiary basis (Corsell v Corsell, 101 AD2d 766, 767 [1984]). There is an evidentiary basis here for the court’s finding that unsupervised visitation would have a negative impact on the child’s well-being (see Matter of Frank M. v Donna W., 44 AD3d 495 [2007]). Respondent refused an offer of supervised visitation. Under these circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in suspending his visitation. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Arelis Carmen S. v. Daniel H., 78 A.D.3d 504, 911 N.Y.S.2d 49 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

78 A.D.3d 504 (Arelis Carmen S. v. Daniel H.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related