Laffey v. Laffey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laffey v. Laffey

289 A.D.2d 577, 735 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13063

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 577 (Laffey v. Laffey) 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

Laffey v. Laffey, 289 A.D.2d 577, 735 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal, by permission, is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), entered September 21, 2001, as, in effect, vacated a temporary order of protection of the same court, dated August 2, 2001, which, inter alia, suspended the father’s visitation with the parties’ child.

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

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the temporary order which, inter alia, suspended the father’s visitation with the parties’ child. The monitored visitation is in the best interests of the child (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Altman, J. P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the appeal, by permission, is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Brennan, J.), entered September 21, 2001, as, in effect, vacated a temporary order of protection of the same court, dated August 2, 2001, which, inter alia, suspended the father’s visitation with the parties’ child.

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

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in vacating the temporary order which, inter alia, suspended the father’s visitation with the parties’ child. The monitored visitation is in the best interests of the child (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Altman, J. P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 577, 735 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laffey-v-laffey-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack