Mallory v. Mashack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mallory v. Mashack

266 A.D.2d 907, 698 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11695

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 907 (Mallory v. Mashack) 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

Mallory v. Mashack, 266 A.D.2d 907, 698 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Cayuga County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner visitation without conducting a hearing (see, Matter of Langdon v Stephen, 212 AD2d 1066; Matter of Fura v Seddon, 176 AD2d 1244; Matter of Elizabeth D., 127 AD2d 971). The denial of visitation to a parent is a drastic remedy that is warranted only where there are compelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation is detrimental to the child’s welfare (see, De Pinto v De Pinto, 98 AD2d 985).

Petitioner contends that he was not informed of his right to counsel. The record does not establish whether petitioner was so informed and reflects only that petitioner was not present at any of the court proceedings. In any event, it is well settled that petitioner must be informed of his right to counsel and be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard in court (see, Family Ct Act § 262; see also, Matter of Sasha S., 256 AD2d 468). (Appeal from Order of Cayuga County Family Court, Corning, J. — Visitation.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Cayuga County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner visitation without conducting a hearing (see, Matter of Langdon v Stephen, 212 AD2d 1066; Matter of Fura v Seddon, 176 AD2d 1244; Matter of Elizabeth D., 127 AD2d 971). The denial of visitation to a parent is a drastic remedy that is warranted only where there are compelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation is detrimental to the child’s welfare (see, De Pinto v De Pinto, 98 AD2d 985).

Petitioner contends that he was not informed of his right to counsel. The record does not establish whether petitioner was so informed and reflects only that petitioner was not present at any of the court proceedings. In any event, it is well settled that petitioner must be informed of his right to counsel and be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard in court (see, Family Ct Act § 262; see also, Matter of Sasha S., 256 AD2d 468). (Appeal from Order of Cayuga County Family Court, Corning, J. — Visitation.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 907, 698 N.Y.S.2d 387, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallory-v-mashack-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack