In re Amber D.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Amber D.C.

53 A.D.3d 613, 862 N.Y.S.2d 103

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

DecidedJuly 22, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.3d 613 (In re Amber D.C.) 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

In re Amber D.C., 53 A.D.3d 613, 862 N.Y.S.2d 103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father and the mother separately appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kangs County (Lim, J.), dated June 15, 2007, which denied their applications to continue a hearing on the issue of visitation with the subject child and, in effect, continued the temporary suspension of their visitation with the subject child as directed in an order to show cause dated June 22, 2006.

[614]*614Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the applications to continue a hearing on the issue of visitation with the subject child, and substituting therefor a provision granting the applications; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for the completion of a hearing on the issue of visitation with the subject child; and it is further,

Ordered that pending further order of the Family Court, Kings County, the temporary suspension of visitation between the appellants and the subject child as directed in the order to show cause dated June 22, 2006, shall remain in effect.

“When adjudicating visitation rights, the court’s first concern is ‘the welfare and the interests of the children’ ” (McGrath v D’Angio-McGrath, 42 AD3d 440, 441 [2007], quoting Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 272 [1969]; see Matter of Nikolic v Ingrassia, 47 AD3d 819, 821 [2008]; Lew v Lew, 45 AD3d 648, 649 [2007]). A hearing on the issue of visitation is necessary. However, in the interim and until further order of the Family Court, Kings County, we deem it appropriate to continue the court’s temporary suspension of visitation between the appellants and the subject child.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father and the mother separately appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kangs County (Lim, J.), dated June 15, 2007, which denied their applications to continue a hearing on the issue of visitation with the subject child and, in effect, continued the temporary suspension of their visitation with the subject child as directed in an order to show cause dated June 22, 2006.

[614]*614Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the applications to continue a hearing on the issue of visitation with the subject child, and substituting therefor a provision granting the applications; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for the completion of a hearing on the issue of visitation with the subject child; and it is further,

Ordered that pending further order of the Family Court, Kings County, the temporary suspension of visitation between the appellants and the subject child as directed in the order to show cause dated June 22, 2006, shall remain in effect.

“When adjudicating visitation rights, the court’s first concern is ‘the welfare and the interests of the children’ ” (McGrath v D’Angio-McGrath, 42 AD3d 440, 441 [2007], quoting Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 272 [1969]; see Matter of Nikolic v Ingrassia, 47 AD3d 819, 821 [2008]; Lew v Lew, 45 AD3d 648, 649 [2007]). A hearing on the issue of visitation is necessary. However, in the interim and until further order of the Family Court, Kings County, we deem it appropriate to continue the court’s temporary suspension of visitation between the appellants and the subject child.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.3d 613, 862 N.Y.S.2d 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amber-dc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack