Liverance v. Liverance

2017 NY Slip Op 1544, 148 A.D.3d 695, 47 N.Y.S.3d 713
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 1, 2017
Docket2015-02067
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1544 (Liverance v. Liverance) 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
Liverance v. Liverance, 2017 NY Slip Op 1544, 148 A.D.3d 695, 47 N.Y.S.3d 713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Appeal by the plaintiff from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charles D. Wood, J.), dated January 6, 2015. The interlocutory judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision of that court dated July 24, 2014, made after a nonjury trial, directed that the plaintiff’s visitation with the parties’ child be supervised.

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

Supervised visitation is appropriate only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child (see Matter of Mikell v Bermejo, 139 AD3d 954 [2016]; Irizarry v Irizarry, 115 AD3d 913 [2014]; Matter of Bullinger v Costa, 63 AD3d 735, 735-736 [2009]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008]; Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022, 1024 [2007]). The determination of whether visitation should *696 be supervised is a matter left to the trial court’s sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Gooler v Gooler, 107 AD3d 712 [2013]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839). Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff’s unsupervised visitation with the parties’ child would be detrimental to the child was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed.

Balkin, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Viola J. v. Baron A.
2026 NY Slip Op 00774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Matter of Demelfi v. Fliedner
2019 NY Slip Op 3969 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Rosenstock v. Rosenstock
2018 NY Slip Op 4019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Murphy v. Lewis
2017 NY Slip Op 2656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 1544, 148 A.D.3d 695, 47 N.Y.S.3d 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liverance-v-liverance-nyappdiv-2017.