Matter of Daquana S. v. Jeff M.
This text of 221 A.D.3d 418 (Matter of Daquana S. v. Jeff M.) 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.
Opinion
| Matter of Daquana S. v Jeff M. |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 05550 |
| Decided on November 02, 2023 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: November 02, 2023
Before: Oing, J.P., Moulton, González, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.
Docket No. O-00670/20 Appeal No. 954 Case No. 2022-04229
v
Jeff M., Respondent-Appellant.
Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for respondent.
D. Philip Schiff, Sea Cliff, attorney for the child.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jacob K. Maeroff, Referee), entered on or about September 22, 2022, which, after a hearing, directed respondent father to stay away from petitioner for a period of two years and did not provide for in-person visitation between the father and the parties' child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court was permitted, but not required, to provide for visitation with the child in the order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 842 [b]). Based on the evidence that the father violently assaulted the mother in the child's presence over a four-year period and failed to return the child for one week after the mother permitted visitation, the court providently issued a two-year order of protection directing the father, inter alia, to stay away from the mother's home and place of business and not to communicate with the mother, except for phone and video calls for the purpose of communicating with the child, or by email to discuss the child's welfare or visitation (see Matter of Sheila N. v Rudy N., 184 AD3d 514, 514 [1st Dept 2020]). The order was subject to any order of custody or visitation issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: November 2, 2023
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
221 A.D.3d 418, 197 N.Y.S.3d 234, 2023 NY Slip Op 05550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-daquana-s-v-jeff-m-nyappdiv-2023.