Harris v. Ellis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. Ellis

191 A.D.2d 1035, 595 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2990

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 1035 (Harris v. Ellis) 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

Harris v. Ellis, 191 A.D.2d 1035, 595 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject petitioner’s contention that he was denied due process of law because the court denied him visitation with the children. In reaching its decision, Family Court relied upon a report prepared by the Probation Department, which supported respondent’s allegations regarding petitioner’s alcohol dependence and abusive behavior. Petitioner, who was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, consented to the court’s use of the report and petitioner received a copy of the report prior to the court’s decision. Although afforded an opportunity to explain or rebut the material in the report, petitioner chose not to present any evidence. The procedures used by Family Court did not deprive petitioner of due process of law (see, Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 273; Kesseler v Kesseler, 10 NY2d 445). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J. — Visitation.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject petitioner’s contention that he was denied due process of law because the court denied him visitation with the children. In reaching its decision, Family Court relied upon a report prepared by the Probation Department, which supported respondent’s allegations regarding petitioner’s alcohol dependence and abusive behavior. Petitioner, who was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, consented to the court’s use of the report and petitioner received a copy of the report prior to the court’s decision. Although afforded an opportunity to explain or rebut the material in the report, petitioner chose not to present any evidence. The procedures used by Family Court did not deprive petitioner of due process of law (see, Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 273; Kesseler v Kesseler, 10 NY2d 445). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J. — Visitation.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 1035, 595 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-ellis-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack