In re Janae H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Janae H.

105 A.D.3d 959, 962 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedApril 17, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 959 (In re Janae H.) 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 Janae H., 105 A.D.3d 959, 962 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Beckoff, J), dated March 12, 2012, as, without a hearing, in effect, denied her application to direct that the visitation of the nonparty respondent father with the child Justin H. be supervised and permitted the father to continue his unsupervised visitation with Justin H. on alternate weekends.

[960]*960Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court had adequate information before it to determine, without an evidentiary hearing, that it was in the best interests of the child Justin H. to continue unsupervised visitation with his father on alternate weekends (see Matter of Cardona v Vantassel, 96 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2012]; Matter of Feldman v Feldman, 79 AD3d 871, 871-872 [2010]).

Dillon, J.P, Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

—In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Beckoff, J), dated March 12, 2012, as, without a hearing, in effect, denied her application to direct that the visitation of the nonparty respondent father with the child Justin H. be supervised and permitted the father to continue his unsupervised visitation with Justin H. on alternate weekends.

[960]*960Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court had adequate information before it to determine, without an evidentiary hearing, that it was in the best interests of the child Justin H. to continue unsupervised visitation with his father on alternate weekends (see Matter of Cardona v Vantassel, 96 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2012]; Matter of Feldman v Feldman, 79 AD3d 871, 871-872 [2010]).

Dillon, J.P, Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 959, 962 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-janae-h-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack