Marcial v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcial v. Sullivan

296 A.D.2d 551, 745 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7546

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

DecidedJuly 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 551 (Marcial v. Sullivan) 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

Marcial v. Sullivan, 296 A.D.2d 551, 745 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lopez-Torres, J.), dated November 13, 2000, which, without a hearing, inter alia, denied his application for visitation.

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

The Family Court permitted the father to correspond with his two children and to obtain photographs of them, but denied his request for visitation at the correctional facility where he is incarcerated. The children’s mother is deceased, and their maternal grandmother was granted custody in 1992. The children currently reside in Pennsylvania, and the father failed to establish a meaningful relationship with them before his incarceration. The father’s eight-year-old son has never seen him, and his 10-year-old son, who has not seen him since he was two years old, does not remember him. According to the Law Guardian, both children expressed a fear of visiting their father in prison. While a parent’s incarceration, standing alone, does not make visitation inappropriate (see Matter of Selca v Selca, 267 AD2d 314), the determination of the Family Court to deny visitation was appropriate based on all the circumstances, which demonstrate that it would be inimical to the children’s welfare (see Matter of Selca v Selca, supra; Matter of Ellett v Ellett, 265 AD2d 747). O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lopez-Torres, J.), dated November 13, 2000, which, without a hearing, inter alia, denied his application for visitation.

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

The Family Court permitted the father to correspond with his two children and to obtain photographs of them, but denied his request for visitation at the correctional facility where he is incarcerated. The children’s mother is deceased, and their maternal grandmother was granted custody in 1992. The children currently reside in Pennsylvania, and the father failed to establish a meaningful relationship with them before his incarceration. The father’s eight-year-old son has never seen him, and his 10-year-old son, who has not seen him since he was two years old, does not remember him. According to the Law Guardian, both children expressed a fear of visiting their father in prison. While a parent’s incarceration, standing alone, does not make visitation inappropriate (see Matter of Selca v Selca, 267 AD2d 314), the determination of the Family Court to deny visitation was appropriate based on all the circumstances, which demonstrate that it would be inimical to the children’s welfare (see Matter of Selca v Selca, supra; Matter of Ellett v Ellett, 265 AD2d 747). O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 551, 745 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcial-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack