Mazur v. Palomino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mazur v. Palomino

239 A.D.2d 347, 657 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4571

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

DecidedMay 5, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 347 (Mazur v. Palomino) 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

Mazur v. Palomino, 239 A.D.2d 347, 657 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (McLeod, J.), entered January 29, 1996, as, upon denying her motions to increase her visitation time with the parties’ daughter and to suspend her child support payments, terminated her visitation rights.

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

A noncustodial parent may not be deprived of his or her rights to meaningful visitation unless there is substantial evidence that such visitation would be detrimental to the child’s welfare (see, Nacson v Nacson, 166 AD2d 510). The record in the instant case, which includes the transcript of an in camera interview with the child and the testimony of the court-appointed psychiatrist, supports the Family Court’s determination to terminate the mother’s visitation rights (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Robert T. F. v Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449). Accordingly, the court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis and will not be disturbed.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (McLeod, J.), entered January 29, 1996, as, upon denying her motions to increase her visitation time with the parties’ daughter and to suspend her child support payments, terminated her visitation rights.

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

A noncustodial parent may not be deprived of his or her rights to meaningful visitation unless there is substantial evidence that such visitation would be detrimental to the child’s welfare (see, Nacson v Nacson, 166 AD2d 510). The record in the instant case, which includes the transcript of an in camera interview with the child and the testimony of the court-appointed psychiatrist, supports the Family Court’s determination to terminate the mother’s visitation rights (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Robert T. F. v Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449). Accordingly, the court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis and will not be disturbed.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 347, 657 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mazur-v-palomino-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack