Jones v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Jones

155 A.D.2d 542, 547 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14243

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 542 (Jones v. Jones) 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

Jones v. Jones, 155 A.D.2d 542, 547 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of [543]*543the Family Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 26, 1987, which, after a hearing, denied his application for visitation with his two children.

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

Upon our review of the record we find that there is substantial evidence that visitation with the petitioner would be inimical to the children’s welfare at this time (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175; cf., Valenza v Valenza, 143 AD2d 860; Resnick v Zoldan, 134 AD2d 246; Janousek v Janousek, 108 AD2d 782). The record indicates that the children had had virtually no contact with their father for the preceding seven years, that their last visit with him in 1982 was particularly disruptive to them, and that they were both vehemently opposed to visitation. While the stated desires of the children are not decisive (see, Bubbins v Bubbins, 136 AD2d 672; Matter of Eric L. v Dorothy L., 130 AD2d 660, 661), in light of the other circumstances present in this case, the Family Court’s determination that visitation is contrary to the children’s best interests should not be disturbed (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rosenblatt, 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 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of [543]*543the Family Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 26, 1987, which, after a hearing, denied his application for visitation with his two children.

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

Upon our review of the record we find that there is substantial evidence that visitation with the petitioner would be inimical to the children’s welfare at this time (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175; cf., Valenza v Valenza, 143 AD2d 860; Resnick v Zoldan, 134 AD2d 246; Janousek v Janousek, 108 AD2d 782). The record indicates that the children had had virtually no contact with their father for the preceding seven years, that their last visit with him in 1982 was particularly disruptive to them, and that they were both vehemently opposed to visitation. While the stated desires of the children are not decisive (see, Bubbins v Bubbins, 136 AD2d 672; Matter of Eric L. v Dorothy L., 130 AD2d 660, 661), in light of the other circumstances present in this case, the Family Court’s determination that visitation is contrary to the children’s best interests should not be disturbed (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171).

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 542, 547 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-jones-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack