Cashel v. Cashel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cashel v. Cashel

46 A.D.3d 501, 845 N.Y.S.2d 920

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 501 (Cashel v. Cashel) 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

Cashel v. Cashel, 46 A.D.3d 501, 845 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated January 18, 2007, which denied his cross motion, in effect, to prohibit contact between the parties’ child and the mother’s boyfriend Joseph Galante during the mother’s visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366 [2004]; Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra, 294 AD2d 565, 565-566 [2002]). In the instant case, the Supreme Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated January 18, 2007, which denied his cross motion, in effect, to prohibit contact between the parties’ child and the mother’s boyfriend Joseph Galante during the mother’s visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366 [2004]; Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra, 294 AD2d 565, 565-566 [2002]). In the instant case, the Supreme Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 501, 845 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cashel-v-cashel-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack