Margaret M. L. v. Douglas J. L.

284 A.D.2d 999, 727 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5752

This text of 284 A.D.2d 999 (Margaret M. L. v. Douglas J. L.) 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
Margaret M. L. v. Douglas J. L., 284 A.D.2d 999, 727 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Amended order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff moved to modify the visitation provisions of the parties’ judgment of annulment. [1000]*1000On the basis of her accusations that defendant had sexually abused the parties’ daughter, plaintiff sought to deny defendant visitation or restrict him to supervised visitation with the parties’ daughter and son. Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion, vacated the order of supervised visitation that had been entered pendente lite, and reinstituted unsupervised visitation pursuant to the terms of the parties’ oral stipulation of settlement, as incorporated but not merged into the judgment of annulment.

The record provides a sound and substantial basis for the court’s findings of fact and credibility, including the findings that “it is highly probable that no abuse occurred,” that plaintiff appeared “bent on finding” that defendant had sexually abused the parties’ daughter, and that plaintiff “continued to make new allegations of sexual abuse up until the conclusion of the hearing, with no apparent basis for those” (see, Matter of Krywanczyk v Krywanczyk, 236 AD2d 746, 747; Matter of Morgan v Santana, 188 AD2d 1047; Matter of Swift v Swift, 162 AD2d 784, 785). The court thus properly restored defendant’s right to unsupervised visitation (see, Matter of Gay M. D. v Gary M. D., 201 AD2d 1024, 1025; Matter of Mary Ann B. v Stephen B., 192 AD2d 962, 963; Matter of Swift v Swift, supra, at 785). (Appeal from Amended Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Visitation.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

Swift v. Swift
162 A.D.2d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Morgan v. Santana
188 A.D.2d 1047 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Mary Ann B. v. Stephen B.
192 A.D.2d 962 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Krywanczyk v. Krywanczyk
236 A.D.2d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 999, 727 N.Y.S.2d 366, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margaret-m-l-v-douglas-j-l-nyappdiv-2001.