Gloria R. v. Alfred R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gloria R. v. Alfred R.

227 A.D.2d 207, 642 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4956

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

DecidedMay 9, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 207 (Gloria R. v. Alfred R.) 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

Gloria R. v. Alfred R., 227 A.D.2d 207, 642 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered on or about September 11, 1995, which denied petitioner-grandparent’s application for supervised visitation with respondents-parents’ children, and granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Neither the passage of time since petitioner’s prior application for visitation, nor the fact that this time she is amenable to visitation that is supervised, nor her recent medical diagnosis, persuades us that, contrary to our finding the last time the parties were before us (209 AD2d 179, lv denied 85 NY2d 882), visitation would now be in the best interests of the children. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ. [See, 166 Misc 2d 141.]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered on or about September 11, 1995, which denied petitioner-grandparent’s application for supervised visitation with respondents-parents’ children, and granted respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Neither the passage of time since petitioner’s prior application for visitation, nor the fact that this time she is amenable to visitation that is supervised, nor her recent medical diagnosis, persuades us that, contrary to our finding the last time the parties were before us (209 AD2d 179, lv denied 85 NY2d 882), visitation would now be in the best interests of the children. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ. [See, 166 Misc 2d 141.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 207, 642 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gloria-r-v-alfred-r-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack