Matter of Melissa G. v. John W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Melissa G. v. John W.

143 A.D.3d 406, 38 N.Y.S.3d 176

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2016

Docket1776

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 143 A.D.3d 406 (Matter of Melissa G. v. John W.) 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 Melissa G. v. John W., 143 A.D.3d 406, 38 N.Y.S.3d 176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*407 Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, after a hearing, supplemented the final order of custody entered on or about January 27, 2014, by awarding unsupervised visitation to the mother but only on specified conditions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s determination that unsupervised visitation with the mother, subject to conditions, is in the child’s best interest, has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Frank M. v Donna W., 44 AD3d 495, 495-496 [1st Dept 2007]), and should not be disturbed (see Linda R. v Ari Z., 71 AD3d 465, 465-466 [1st Dept 2010]). Family Court properly considered the testimony of the then 12-year-old child, who testified both in camera several times and in open court, as well as that of the mother, and concluded that the child would prefer to remain in New York with her father, with unsupervised visitation with her mother in Florida. The court was entitled to give weight to the wishes of this child, who has demonstrated insight and maturity throughout these proceedings (see Melissa C.D. v Rene I.D., 117 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2014]).

Requiring the mother to comply with the specified conditions in the visitation order was not unreasonable or inappropriate (see Matter of John A. v Bridget M., 16 AD3d 324, 331 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]). The prior history of domestic violence (Matter of Melissa Marie G. v John Christopher W., 57 AD3d 314 [1st Dept 2008]) was a factor to be considered in connection with the award of sole custody to the father, and the custody order has already been reviewed and affirmed as being in the child’s best interest (Matter of John W. v Melissa G., 129 AD3d 468 [1st Dept 2015]). The mother has not appealed from the order dismissing her modification petition.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

*407 Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, after a hearing, supplemented the final order of custody entered on or about January 27, 2014, by awarding unsupervised visitation to the mother but only on specified conditions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s determination that unsupervised visitation with the mother, subject to conditions, is in the child’s best interest, has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Frank M. v Donna W., 44 AD3d 495, 495-496 [1st Dept 2007]), and should not be disturbed (see Linda R. v Ari Z., 71 AD3d 465, 465-466 [1st Dept 2010]). Family Court properly considered the testimony of the then 12-year-old child, who testified both in camera several times and in open court, as well as that of the mother, and concluded that the child would prefer to remain in New York with her father, with unsupervised visitation with her mother in Florida. The court was entitled to give weight to the wishes of this child, who has demonstrated insight and maturity throughout these proceedings (see Melissa C.D. v Rene I.D., 117 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2014]).

Requiring the mother to comply with the specified conditions in the visitation order was not unreasonable or inappropriate (see Matter of John A. v Bridget M., 16 AD3d 324, 331 [1st Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]). The prior history of domestic violence (Matter of Melissa Marie G. v John Christopher W., 57 AD3d 314 [1st Dept 2008]) was a factor to be considered in connection with the award of sole custody to the father, and the custody order has already been reviewed and affirmed as being in the child’s best interest (Matter of John W. v Melissa G., 129 AD3d 468 [1st Dept 2015]). The mother has not appealed from the order dismissing her modification petition.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.3d 406, 38 N.Y.S.3d 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-melissa-g-v-john-w-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack