Matter of Arcenia K. v. Lamiek C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Arcenia K. v. Lamiek C.

2016 NY Slip Op 8020, 144 A.D.3d 610, 42 N.Y.S.3d 124

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2016

Docket2339

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8020 (Matter of Arcenia K. v. Lamiek C.) 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

Matter of Arcenia K. v. Lamiek C., 2016 NY Slip Op 8020, 144 A.D.3d 610, 42 N.Y.S.3d 124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2015, which modified the order of visitation to grant the father agency-supervised visits with the subject children to be paid for by the father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Supreme Court’s determination that supervised visitation is in the best interests of the subject children has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (Linda R. v Ari Z., 71 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2010], citing Matter of Custer v Slater, 2 AD3d 1227, 1228 [3d Dept 2003]). The court relied upon the mother’s testimony, a prior order of protection for the mother and children against the father, and prior incidents during supervised visits where the father was volatile, insistent, and intimidating when challenged. All of these demonstrate that father poses a risk of having a negative impact on the girls’ emotional well-being if the visits are not supervised (see Matter of Frank M. v Donna W., 44 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2007]; Karen K. v Kenneth Z., 239 AD2d 159 [1st Dept 1997]). Moreover, there is a sound basis in the record for court’s determination that an agency, and not the paternal grandmother, supervise the visits, as evinced by the father’s statements on social media regarding his evasion of a prior court order. “[Supervised visitation is not a deprivation [of] meaningful access [to a child]” (Lightbourne v Lightbourne, 179 AD2d 562, 562 [1st Dept 1992]).

That branch of the order directing the father to pay for agency-supervised visitation was also an appropriate exercise of the trial judge’s discretion as there is no statutory basis for directing the city to pay the cost of agency-supervised visitation once all proceedings are completed, as County Law § 722-c only authorizes the payment of investigative and other services while a proceeding is pending.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2015, which modified the order of visitation to grant the father agency-supervised visits with the subject children to be paid for by the father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Supreme Court’s determination that supervised visitation is in the best interests of the subject children has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (Linda R. v Ari Z., 71 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2010], citing Matter of Custer v Slater, 2 AD3d 1227, 1228 [3d Dept 2003]). The court relied upon the mother’s testimony, a prior order of protection for the mother and children against the father, and prior incidents during supervised visits where the father was volatile, insistent, and intimidating when challenged. All of these demonstrate that father poses a risk of having a negative impact on the girls’ emotional well-being if the visits are not supervised (see Matter of Frank M. v Donna W., 44 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2007]; Karen K. v Kenneth Z., 239 AD2d 159 [1st Dept 1997]). Moreover, there is a sound basis in the record for court’s determination that an agency, and not the paternal grandmother, supervise the visits, as evinced by the father’s statements on social media regarding his evasion of a prior court order. “[Supervised visitation is not a deprivation [of] meaningful access [to a child]” (Lightbourne v Lightbourne, 179 AD2d 562, 562 [1st Dept 1992]).

That branch of the order directing the father to pay for agency-supervised visitation was also an appropriate exercise of the trial judge’s discretion as there is no statutory basis for directing the city to pay the cost of agency-supervised visitation once all proceedings are completed, as County Law § 722-c only authorizes the payment of investigative and other services while a proceeding is pending.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8020, 144 A.D.3d 610, 42 N.Y.S.3d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-arcenia-k-v-lamiek-c-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack