Matter of Leon T. v. Marie J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Leon T. v. Marie J.

132 A.D.3d 602, 18 N.Y.S.3d 334

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2015

Docket16025

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 602 (Matter of Leon T. v. Marie J.) 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 Leon T. v. Marie J., 132 A.D.3d 602, 18 N.Y.S.3d 334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Marva A. Burnett, Ref.), entered on or about June 16, 2014, which, after a hearing, granted the petition for modification of an order of visitation to provide for expanded and overnight visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that it is in the child’s best interest to modify the prior visitation order and award petitioner father increased visitation has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Michael B. v Dolores C., 113 AD3d 517 [1st Dept 2014]). The record demonstrates a change of circumstances after the prior visitation order was entered into based on the parties’ stipulation (see Matter of Luis F. v. Dayhana D., 109 AD3d 731 [1st Dept 2013]). Respondent mother failed to comply with the agreed schedule for visitation, petitioner moved to a home in Pennsylvania, and the teenaged child expressed a strong desire to spend more time with her father and to stay at his new home overnight (see Matter of Miguel Angel N. v Tanya Lynn A., 131 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2015]; Tirschwell v Beiter, 295 AD2d 266 [1st Dept 2002]). At the court’s direction, petitioner’s home was inspected by a social worker, who found it to be safe and appropriate for overnight visitation.

*603 We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Marva A. Burnett, Ref.), entered on or about June 16, 2014, which, after a hearing, granted the petition for modification of an order of visitation to provide for expanded and overnight visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that it is in the child’s best interest to modify the prior visitation order and award petitioner father increased visitation has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Michael B. v Dolores C., 113 AD3d 517 [1st Dept 2014]). The record demonstrates a change of circumstances after the prior visitation order was entered into based on the parties’ stipulation (see Matter of Luis F. v. Dayhana D., 109 AD3d 731 [1st Dept 2013]). Respondent mother failed to comply with the agreed schedule for visitation, petitioner moved to a home in Pennsylvania, and the teenaged child expressed a strong desire to spend more time with her father and to stay at his new home overnight (see Matter of Miguel Angel N. v Tanya Lynn A., 131 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2015]; Tirschwell v Beiter, 295 AD2d 266 [1st Dept 2002]). At the court’s direction, petitioner’s home was inspected by a social worker, who found it to be safe and appropriate for overnight visitation.

*603 We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 602, 18 N.Y.S.3d 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-leon-t-v-marie-j-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack