Brown v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Brown

130 A.D.3d 923, 12 N.Y.S.3d 898, 2015 NY Slip Op 06240, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6115

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

DecidedJuly 22, 2015

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 923 (Brown v. Brown) 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

Brown v. Brown, 130 A.D.3d 923, 12 N.Y.S.3d 898, 2015 NY Slip Op 06240, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Lori Currier Woods, J.), dated July 7, 2014. The order, after a hearing, inter alia, denied the father’s petition for modification of visitation and imposed certain restrictions on his visitation with the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court’s determination, inter alia, to deny his petition for modification of visitation as being in the best interests of the child, which was made after a hearing in which the court heard testimony from a number of witnesses, including the parties, has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, accordingly, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Mack v Kass, 115 AD3d 748 [2014]; Matter of Gordon v Goldin, 95 AD3d 1115 [2012]). Further, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the restrictions imposed, which require the father’s visitation with the child to occur within New York State and outside the presence of two named individuals (see Matter of Shangraw v Shangraw, 61 AD3d 1302, 1304 [2009]; Kelly v Kelly, 19 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2005]; Matter of Stewart v Stewart, 222 AD2d 895, 896-897 [1995]; cf. Matter of DeCastro v McLean, 129 AD3d 720 [2d Dept 2015]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Lori Currier Woods, J.), dated July 7, 2014. The order, after a hearing, inter alia, denied the father’s petition for modification of visitation and imposed certain restrictions on his visitation with the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court’s determination, inter alia, to deny his petition for modification of visitation as being in the best interests of the child, which was made after a hearing in which the court heard testimony from a number of witnesses, including the parties, has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, accordingly, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Mack v Kass, 115 AD3d 748 [2014]; Matter of Gordon v Goldin, 95 AD3d 1115 [2012]). Further, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the restrictions imposed, which require the father’s visitation with the child to occur within New York State and outside the presence of two named individuals (see Matter of Shangraw v Shangraw, 61 AD3d 1302, 1304 [2009]; Kelly v Kelly, 19 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2005]; Matter of Stewart v Stewart, 222 AD2d 895, 896-897 [1995]; cf. Matter of DeCastro v McLean, 129 AD3d 720 [2d Dept 2015]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 923, 12 N.Y.S.3d 898, 2015 NY Slip Op 06240, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-brown-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack