McNeill v. Ressel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNeill v. Ressel

265 A.D.2d 484, 696 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10426

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 484 (McNeill v. Ressel) 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

McNeill v. Ressel, 265 A.D.2d 484, 696 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner paternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.), entered September 10, 1998, which denied her petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the determination of the Family Court that the best interests of the child require that the petitioner, the child’s paternal grandmother, continue to have only supervised visitation during the father’s periods of visitation, and we decline to disturb that determination (see, Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178; Lo Presti v Lo Presti, 40 NY2d 522).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner paternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.), entered September 10, 1998, which denied her petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the determination of the Family Court that the best interests of the child require that the petitioner, the child’s paternal grandmother, continue to have only supervised visitation during the father’s periods of visitation, and we decline to disturb that determination (see, Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178; Lo Presti v Lo Presti, 40 NY2d 522).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 484, 696 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneill-v-ressel-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack