Castagnola v. Muller

105 A.D.3d 954, 963 N.Y.S.2d 681
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 17, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 105 A.D.3d 954 (Castagnola v. Muller) 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
Castagnola v. Muller, 105 A.D.3d 954, 963 N.Y.S.2d 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

In two related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (LoPresti, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated February 17, 2012, as, after a hearing, in effect, granted her application to suspend visitation between the father and the child only to the extent of directing supervised, therapeutic visitation between the father and the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

When making a determination with respect to visitation, the most important factor is the best interests of the child (see Mat[955]*955ter of Taylor v Taylor, 77 AD3d 669, 669 [2010]; Matter of Balgley v Cohen, 73 AD3d 1038 [2010]; Matter of Shockome v Shockome, 53 AD3d 618, 619 [2008]). Since “[a] noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation,” the “denial of that right must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child” (Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d 774, 775 [2009]). Contrary to the mother’s contention, the determination of the Family Court that directing therapeutic visitation between the father and the child was in the child’s best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record 0see Matter of Thompson v Yu-Thompson, 41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]). Thus, we decline to disturb it.

Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Donkor v. Donkor
2021 NY Slip Op 05699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Justice F. (Jessica v.
2021 NY Slip Op 01773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Haims v. Lehmann
2019 NY Slip Op 3048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Suzanne QQ. v. Ben RR.
2018 NY Slip Op 3180 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of LaChere v. Maliszweski
2018 NY Slip Op 147 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Tecza v. Alija
138 A.D.3d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Ottaviano v. Ippolito
132 A.D.3d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 A.D.3d 954, 963 N.Y.S.2d 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castagnola-v-muller-nyappdiv-2013.