Matter of Myles M. v. Pei-Fong K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Myles M. v. Pei-Fong K.

139 A.D.3d 466, 31 N.Y.S.3d 62

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

DecidedMay 10, 2016

Docket1104

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A.D.3d 466 (Matter of Myles M. v. Pei-Fong K.) 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 Myles M. v. Pei-Fong K., 139 A.D.3d 466, 31 N.Y.S.3d 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Monica Shulman, Ref.), entered on or about August 20, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner father’s petition for overnight visitation with the parties’ child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*467 Family Court’s determination that overnight visitation with the father is not 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]). Family Court properly considered the testimony of the court-appointed expert and the court-appointed visitation supervisor concerning the father’s resistance to participation in a batterer’s program, despite his history of domestic violence with respondent mother, and of his failure to fully accept responsibility for his prior actions. Although the father commenced individual therapy shortly before the hearing, ample evidence supported Family Court’s concern that the child might be exposed to violence during overnight visits based on recent incidents of aggressive behavior by the father with third parties and his admitted continued use of alcohol, which in the past was a factor in the domestic violence.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Monica Shulman, Ref.), entered on or about August 20, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner father’s petition for overnight visitation with the parties’ child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*467 Family Court’s determination that overnight visitation with the father is not 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]). Family Court properly considered the testimony of the court-appointed expert and the court-appointed visitation supervisor concerning the father’s resistance to participation in a batterer’s program, despite his history of domestic violence with respondent mother, and of his failure to fully accept responsibility for his prior actions. Although the father commenced individual therapy shortly before the hearing, ample evidence supported Family Court’s concern that the child might be exposed to violence during overnight visits based on recent incidents of aggressive behavior by the father with third parties and his admitted continued use of alcohol, which in the past was a factor in the domestic violence.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 466, 31 N.Y.S.3d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-myles-m-v-pei-fong-k-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack