Joe M. v. Annette G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joe M. v. Annette G.

208 A.D.2d 928, 618 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10601

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 31, 1994·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity and for an order of visitation, the petitioner appeals from an order of the [929]*929Family Court, Kings County (Burstein, J.), dated September 17, 1992, which dismissed the branch of the petition which was for an order of visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The record contains substantial evidence that visitation with the petitioner, who is incarcerated, would be harmful to the parties’ infant daughter (Paul G. v Donna G., 175 AD2d 236). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity and for an order of visitation, the petitioner appeals from an order of the [929]*929Family Court, Kings County (Burstein, J.), dated September 17, 1992, which dismissed the branch of the petition which was for an order of visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The record contains substantial evidence that visitation with the petitioner, who is incarcerated, would be harmful to the parties’ infant daughter (Paul G. v Donna G., 175 AD2d 236). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Joe M. v. Annette G., 208 A.D.2d 928, 618 N.Y.S.2d 567, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

208 A.D.2d 928 (Joe M. v. Annette G.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related