Luis F. v. Dayhana D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Luis F. v. Dayhana D.

109 A.D.3d 731, 971 N.Y.S.2d 292

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 109 A.D.3d 731 (Luis F. v. Dayhana D.) 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

Luis F. v. Dayhana D., 109 A.D.3d 731, 971 N.Y.S.2d 292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 9, 2012, which, after a hearing, among other things, denied the father’s petition for unsupervised visitation with his child, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to strike that portion of the order which, in effect, prohibits petitioner from seeking modification of the order until the end of 2013, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

There is a sound and substantial evidentiary basis for the Family Court’s determination that it is not in the subject child’s best interest to award petitioner unsupervised visitation (Matter of Craig S. v Donna S., 101 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 862 [2013]). The evidence shows that petitioner had been convicted of assaulting the child’s mother and was required to participate in a six-month domestic violence program.

We find, however, that the Family Court should not have expressly limited petitioner from seeking modification of the order until “the end of 2013” (see Matter of Smith v Smith, 92 AD3d 791, 792-793 [2d Dept 2012]). A custody or visitation order may be modified at any time upon establishing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and that modification is in the child’s best interest (see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380 [2004]). Concur — Friedman, J.R, Freedman, Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

— Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 9, 2012, which, after a hearing, among other things, denied the father’s petition for unsupervised visitation with his child, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to strike that portion of the order which, in effect, prohibits petitioner from seeking modification of the order until the end of 2013, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

There is a sound and substantial evidentiary basis for the Family Court’s determination that it is not in the subject child’s best interest to award petitioner unsupervised visitation (Matter of Craig S. v Donna S., 101 AD3d 505 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 862 [2013]). The evidence shows that petitioner had been convicted of assaulting the child’s mother and was required to participate in a six-month domestic violence program.

We find, however, that the Family Court should not have expressly limited petitioner from seeking modification of the order until “the end of 2013” (see Matter of Smith v Smith, 92 AD3d 791, 792-793 [2d Dept 2012]). A custody or visitation order may be modified at any time upon establishing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and that modification is in the child’s best interest (see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380 [2004]). Concur — Friedman, J.R, Freedman, Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.3d 731, 971 N.Y.S.2d 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luis-f-v-dayhana-d-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack