Hernandez v. Arroyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. Arroyo

203 A.D.2d 461, 610 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4034

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

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 461 (Hernandez v. Arroyo) 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

Hernandez v. Arroyo, 203 A.D.2d 461, 610 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the mother appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sparrow, J.), dated April 18, 1991, as, after a hearing, granted the petitioner father unsupervised visitation with the parties’ twin daughters.

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

Upon the evidence presented to the Family Court, there was no indication that meaningful visitation in the form of unsupervised visitation, which is the right of both the father and his twin daughters, would be detrimental to the welfare of the children (see, Nascon v Nascon, 166 AD2d 510; Shink v Shink, 140 AD2d 506; Resnick v Zoldan, 134 AD2d 246). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s determination to allow the father unsupervised visitation (see, Matter of Darlene T., 28 NY2d 391; Valenza v Valenza, 143 AD2d 860). Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the mother appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sparrow, J.), dated April 18, 1991, as, after a hearing, granted the petitioner father unsupervised visitation with the parties’ twin daughters.

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

Upon the evidence presented to the Family Court, there was no indication that meaningful visitation in the form of unsupervised visitation, which is the right of both the father and his twin daughters, would be detrimental to the welfare of the children (see, Nascon v Nascon, 166 AD2d 510; Shink v Shink, 140 AD2d 506; Resnick v Zoldan, 134 AD2d 246). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s determination to allow the father unsupervised visitation (see, Matter of Darlene T., 28 NY2d 391; Valenza v Valenza, 143 AD2d 860). Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 461, 610 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-arroyo-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack