Bradley v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bradley v. Wright

260 A.D.2d 477, 686 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 477 (Bradley v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley v. Wright, 260 A.D.2d 477, 686 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated November 10, 1997, which dismissed his petition for visitation.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

A noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation. Denial of that right is so drastic that it must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child (see, Matter of MacEwen v MacEwen, 214 AD2d 572; Matter of Vanderhoff v Vanderhoff, 207 AD2d 494). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court erred in denying the father visitation without conducting an evidentiary hearing (see, Pica v Pica, 96 AD2d 836; Heely v Heely, 69 AD2d 810; Kresnicka v Kresnicka, 48 AD2d 929). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated November 10, 1997, which dismissed his petition for visitation.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

A noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation. Denial of that right is so drastic that it must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child (see, Matter of MacEwen v MacEwen, 214 AD2d 572; Matter of Vanderhoff v Vanderhoff, 207 AD2d 494). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court erred in denying the father visitation without conducting an evidentiary hearing (see, Pica v Pica, 96 AD2d 836; Heely v Heely, 69 AD2d 810; Kresnicka v Kresnicka, 48 AD2d 929). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 477, 686 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-wright-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack