Lawrence v. Lawrence

154 A.D.2d 377, 546 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12275
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lawrence v. Lawrence. Read the opinion of the Court — 180 A.D.2d 619

Opinion

— In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Tejada, J.), dated March 9, 1988, which limited his visitation with his daughter to the period from 10:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. every Saturday.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, we find no impropriety or improvident exercise of discretion in the formulation of the visitation schedule (see, Nelms v Nelms, 135 AD2d 518; Kandel v Kandel, 129 AD2d 617; People ex rel. Cramp v [378]*378Cramp, 117 AD2d 762). Eiber, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Lawrence v. Lawrence, 154 A.D.2d 377, 546 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

154 A.D.2d 377 (Lawrence v. Lawrence) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People ex rel. Cramp v. Cramp
117 A.D.2d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Kandel v. Kandel
129 A.D.2d 617 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Nelms v. Nelms
135 A.D.2d 518 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)