Matter of Lopez v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Lopez v. Lopez

127 A.D.3d 974, 4 N.Y.S.3d 912

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

DecidedApril 15, 2015

Docket2014-01548

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 974 (Matter of Lopez v. Lopez) 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 Lopez v. Lopez, 127 A.D.3d 974, 4 N.Y.S.3d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Linda M. Boggio, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 14, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon granting the father’s petition to modify an order of custody and visitation of the Family Court, Queens County (Salvatore J. Módica, J.), dated June 30, 2005, directed that his visitation with the subject child be supervised.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“It is within the sound discretion of the [Family Court] to determine whether visitation should be supervised” (Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008], quoting Matter of Morgan v Sheevers, 259 AD2d 619, 620 [1999]; see Matter of Custer v Slater, 2 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2003]), and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839; Matter of Khan v Dolly, 39 AD3d 649, 651 [2007]; Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366 [2004]; Matter of Levande v Levande, 308 AD2d 450, 451 [2003]). “Supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839, quoting Matter of Gainza v Gainza, 24 AD3d 551, 551 [2005]; see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022, 1024 [2007]; Purcell v Purcell, 5 AD3d 752, 753 [2004]).

Here, the evidence established that the subject child, who *975 was 11 years old at the time of the fact-finding hearing, and who has serious physical and mental health challenges, has had very little contact with his father since 2008, and that he became agitated when he saw his father. Accordingly, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing that the father’s visitation with the child be supervised.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Linda M. Boggio, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 14, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon granting the father’s petition to modify an order of custody and visitation of the Family Court, Queens County (Salvatore J. Módica, J.), dated June 30, 2005, directed that his visitation with the subject child be supervised.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“It is within the sound discretion of the [Family Court] to determine whether visitation should be supervised” (Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008], quoting Matter of Morgan v Sheevers, 259 AD2d 619, 620 [1999]; see Matter of Custer v Slater, 2 AD3d 1227, 1228 [2003]), and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839; Matter of Khan v Dolly, 39 AD3d 649, 651 [2007]; Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366 [2004]; Matter of Levande v Levande, 308 AD2d 450, 451 [2003]). “Supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839, quoting Matter of Gainza v Gainza, 24 AD3d 551, 551 [2005]; see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022, 1024 [2007]; Purcell v Purcell, 5 AD3d 752, 753 [2004]).

Here, the evidence established that the subject child, who *975 was 11 years old at the time of the fact-finding hearing, and who has serious physical and mental health challenges, has had very little contact with his father since 2008, and that he became agitated when he saw his father. Accordingly, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing that the father’s visitation with the child be supervised.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 974, 4 N.Y.S.3d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lopez-v-lopez-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack