Diedrich v. Vandermallie

90 A.D.3d 1511, 934 N.Y.2d 735
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 23, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 1511 (Diedrich v. Vandermallie) 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
Diedrich v. Vandermallie, 90 A.D.3d 1511, 934 N.Y.2d 735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is reinstated and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Wayne County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner father appeals from an order dismissing his petition seeking visitation with the parties’ child. We agree with the father that Family Court erred in granting the motion of respondent mother to dismiss the petition (see generally Matter of Crowell v Livziey, 20 AD3d 923 [2005]). “It is well settled that visitation with a noncustodial parent is generally presumed to be in a child’s best interests” (Matter of Mark C. v Patricia B., 41 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2007]; see generally Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175 [1981]), and denial of such visitation “ ‘is a drastic remedy to be employed only where there are compelling reasons for doing so and substantial evidence that visitation will be harmful to the child[ ]’s welfare’ ” (Matter of Chapman v Tucker, 74 AD3d 1905, 1906 [2010]). Here, we conclude that “the court abused its discretion by denying [the father] visitation with [the] child[ ] because no evidence was presented to support a conclusion that visitation with [the father] is detrimental to the child[ ]’s welfare” (Vasile v Vasile, 116 AD2d 1021, 1021 [1986]). We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the petition and remit the matter to Family Court for further [1512]*1512proceedings on the petition. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Green, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Benson v. Smith
2019 NY Slip Op 9175 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
TUTTLE, SUSAN v. MATEO, BETH
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Tuttle v. Mateo
121 A.D.3d 1602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
BROWN, CLARENCE R. v. DIVELBLISS, MELODY M.
105 A.D.3d 1369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
FOX, JAMES M. v. FOX, ELAINE H.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Fox v. Fox
93 A.D.3d 1224 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.3d 1511, 934 N.Y.2d 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diedrich-v-vandermallie-nyappdiv-2011.