In re of Brian H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re of Brian H.

25 A.D.3d 739, 807 N.Y.S.2d 569

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.3d 739 (In re of Brian 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 of Brian H., 25 A.D.3d 739, 807 N.Y.S.2d 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Jose V appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hamill, J.), dated January 18, 2005, which granted the motion of the respondent, Administration for Children’s Services, in effect, to suspend his visitation with the child on the grounds, inter alia, that he lacked standing and that visitation would be contrary to the child’s best interests.

[740]*740Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court correctly concluded that the appellant, who is the paramour of the child’s mother, lacked standing to seek visitation (see Family Ct Act § 1081; Matter of Jessica F., 7 AD3d 708 [2004]; Matter of S. Children, 238 AD2d 364 [1997]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Jose V appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hamill, J.), dated January 18, 2005, which granted the motion of the respondent, Administration for Children’s Services, in effect, to suspend his visitation with the child on the grounds, inter alia, that he lacked standing and that visitation would be contrary to the child’s best interests.

[740]*740Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court correctly concluded that the appellant, who is the paramour of the child’s mother, lacked standing to seek visitation (see Family Ct Act § 1081; Matter of Jessica F., 7 AD3d 708 [2004]; Matter of S. Children, 238 AD2d 364 [1997]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 739, 807 N.Y.S.2d 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-of-brian-h-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack