Mills v. Sweeting

278 A.D.2d 943, 718 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13646
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 943 (Mills v. Sweeting) 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
Mills v. Sweeting, 278 A.D.2d 943, 718 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Cayuga County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioner, an inmate at a correctional facility, commenced this proceeding seeking visitation with his son. He appeals from an order limiting his visitation to three to four times per year and requiring him to send respondent sufficient sums to pay for the travel expenses for herself and the child before each visit. Family Court’s order was made on the consent of respondent; petitioner was not present. “[A]n award of visitation is always conditioned upon a [944]*944consideration of the best interests of the child” (Matter of Rhynes v Rhynes, 242 AD2d 943). Further, “[a] determination of the [child’s] best interests should only be made after a full evidentiary hearing unless there is sufficient information before the court to enable it to undertake an independent comprehensive review of the [child’s] best interests” (Matter of Kenneth H. v Barbara G., 256 AD2d 1029). The court erred in deciding the petition without conducting a hearing to determine the best interests of the child with respect to visitation with petitioner or otherwise affording petitioner the opportunity to be heard (see, Matter of Kenneth H. v Barbara G., supra, at 1029-1030; see also, Matter of Rhynes v Rhynes, supra). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Cayuga County Family Court for that purpose. (Appeal from Order of Cayuga County Family Court, Corning, J. — Visitation.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

Related

BROWN, CLARENCE R. v. DIVELBLISS, MELODY M.
105 A.D.3d 1369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
SECRIST, ROBERT D. v. BROWN, KRISTA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
Secrist v. Brown
83 A.D.3d 1399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Lando v. Lando
79 A.D.3d 1796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
McCullough v. Brown
21 A.D.3d 1349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Van Orman v. Van Orman
19 A.D.3d 1167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 943, 718 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-sweeting-nyappdiv-2000.