Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/De Pinto v. De Pinto

De Pinto v. De Pinto

98 A.D.2d 985, 470 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21329
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 16, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 985 (De Pinto v. De Pinto) 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
De Pinto v. De Pinto, 98 A.D.2d 985, 470 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in denying without a hearing defendant’s application for visitation with his eight-year-old son. We recently restated the general rule regarding visitation: “ ‘Visitation is always to be premised upon a consideration of the best interests of the children (.Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429, 433-434); however, denying visitation to a natural parent is a drastic remedy and should only be done where there are compelling reasons {Herb v Herb, 8 AD2d 419), and there must be substantial evidence that such visitation is detrimental to the children’s welfare {Farhi v Farhi, 64 AD2d 840; Hotze v Hotze, 57 AD2d 85, mot for lv to app den 42 NY2d 805)’ {Chirumbolo v Chirumbolo, 75 AD2d 992, 993)” {Parker v Ford, 89 AD2d 806, 806-807). Here, the court did not correlate its decision to deny visitation to defendant with the [986]*986best interests of the child. Accordingly, the matter is remitted for a hearing to determine whether visitation should be permitted and, if so, whether it should be supervised (Parker v Ford, supra). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Broughton, J. — visitation.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

Related

Murek v. Murek
292 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Cameron C.
283 A.D.2d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Melinda A. v. Greene County Department of Social Services
278 A.D.2d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Mallory v. Mashack
266 A.D.2d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Lonobile v. Betkowski
261 A.D.2d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Rhynes v. Rhynes
242 A.D.2d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Langdon v. Stephen
212 A.D.2d 1066 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Tacconi v. Tacconi
197 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re Adam H.
195 A.D.2d 1074 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Gowan v. Menga
178 A.D.2d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Cesario v. Cesario
168 A.D.2d 911 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
R. J. v. D. J.
133 Misc. 2d 883 (NYC Family Court, 1986)
Vasile v. Vasile
116 A.D.2d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Heyer v. Heyer
112 A.D.2d 539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 A.D.2d 985, 470 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-pinto-v-de-pinto-nyappdiv-1983.