Jessica B. ex rel. Joseph B. v. Robert B.

104 A.D.3d 1077, 961 N.Y.S.2d 608

This text of 104 A.D.3d 1077 (Jessica B. ex rel. Joseph B. v. Robert B.) 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
Jessica B. ex rel. Joseph B. v. Robert B., 104 A.D.3d 1077, 961 N.Y.S.2d 608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Garry, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered August 9, 2011, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for visitation with her sibling.

Petitioner, who lives in Massachusetts, has two younger siblings, Joseph B. (born in 1994) and Melissa B. (born in 1997). Joseph and Melissa resided together in Broome County, in the custody of respondent, their paternal uncle, until September 2010. Joseph then moved to Massachusetts, where he resides with petitioner and in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families. In November 2010, petitioner [1078]*1078commenced this proceeding on behalf of herself and Joseph, seeking visitation with Melissa. Family Court granted visitation following a hearing, but, citing Joseph’s troubled background, limited visitation to occur during daytime hours, on one weekend per month, in Broome County. The attorney for the child representing Joseph appeals.

The sole issue raised on this appeal is a challenge to Family Court’s denial of the request by the attorney for Joseph for a Lincoln hearing to ascertain Melissa’s wishes (see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270 [1969]). Such a hearing, though often preferable, is not mandatory, and the determination is addressed to Family Court’s discretion (see Matter of DeRuzzio v Ruggles, 88 AD3d 1091, 1091 [2011]; Matter of Walker v Tall lv denied 93 NY2d 804 [1999]). Here, on the final day of the fact-finding hearing, the attorney representing Joseph made a written application requesting that the court conduct a Lincoln hearing prior to rendering a determination, but the attorney representing Melissa stated that a Lincoln hearing was not necessary, as he would convey her wishes.

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

Related

Lincoln v. Lincoln
247 N.E.2d 659 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
Flood v. Flood
63 A.D.3d 1197 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Tamara FF. v. John FF.
75 A.D.3d 688 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Spencer v. Spencer
85 A.D.3d 1244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
DeRuzzio v. Ruggles
88 A.D.3d 1091 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 A.D.3d 1077, 961 N.Y.S.2d 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessica-b-ex-rel-joseph-b-v-robert-b-nyappdiv-2013.