Matter of D.S. v. M.Z.

2024 NY Slip Op 03078

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: June 6, 2024
• Docket: Docket No. V22751-17/21 V26209-17/21 Appeal No. 2432 Case No. 2023-04494
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of D.S. v M.Z. (2024 NY Slip Op 03078)

Matter of D.S. v M.Z.

2024 NY Slip Op 03078

Decided on June 06, 2024

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: June 06, 2024
Before: Kern, J.P., Moulton, Friedman, González, Pitt-Burke, JJ.

Docket No. V22751-17/21 V26209-17/21 Appeal No. 2432 Case No. 2023-04494

[*1]In the Matter of D.S., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

M.Z., Respondent-Respondent.

Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for appellant.

Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for respondent.

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Claire V. Merkine of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Liberty Aldrich, J.), entered on or about July 5, 2023, which, after a hearing, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the father's petition to modify an order of custody and visitation to provide for extended out-of-state visits with the parties' child in North Carolina, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly determined that it was in the child's best interest to continue to have visits with the father, but only in New York and for limited periods, and not have extended out-state-visits in North Carolina. The credible evidence, including a mental health service clinical evaluation, demonstrated that the father has untreated chronic mental illness, which manifests in delusional thoughts and dysregulated behavior, as well as disparagement of the mother, in the child's presence, and has resulted in incidents that placed the child at risk (see Matter of Evangelina C. v Maksim K., 203 AD3d 536, 537 [1st Dept 2022]; Matter of Elisa N. v Yoav I., 170 AD3d 513, 514-515 [1st Dept 2019]).

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: June 6, 2024