Binong Xu v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Binong Xu v. Sullivan

91 A.D.3d 771, 936 N.Y.2d 569

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 17, 2012·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

The father withdrew his petition for custody during the course of the hearing. Therefore, his contentions regarding an award of joint custody are not properly before this Court.

Although “[supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Matter of Bullinger v Costa, 63 AD3d 735, 735-736 [2009]; see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022, 1024 [2007]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008]), a determination as to whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to the court’s sound discretion, and its findings [772]*772will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound basis in the record (see Matter of Lorraine D. v Widmack C., 79 AD3d 745, 745-746 [2010]; Matter of Smith v Roberts, 67 AD3d 688, 689 [2009]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839). Here, the determination that visitation should be supervised was made after a hearing, and is supported by the evidence in the record, including expert opinion adduced after a forensic examination.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Rivera, J.E, Roman, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

The father withdrew his petition for custody during the course of the hearing. Therefore, his contentions regarding an award of joint custody are not properly before this Court.

Although “[supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Matter of Bullinger v Costa, 63 AD3d 735, 735-736 [2009]; see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022, 1024 [2007]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008]), a determination as to whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to the court’s sound discretion, and its findings [772]*772will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound basis in the record (see Matter of Lorraine D. v Widmack C., 79 AD3d 745, 745-746 [2010]; Matter of Smith v Roberts, 67 AD3d 688, 689 [2009]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839). Here, the determination that visitation should be supervised was made after a hearing, and is supported by the evidence in the record, including expert opinion adduced after a forensic examination.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Rivera, J.E, Roman, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Binong Xu v. Sullivan, 91 A.D.3d 771, 936 N.Y.2d 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

91 A.D.3d 771 (Binong Xu v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related