Morgan v. Sheevers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan v. Sheevers

259 A.D.2d 619, 684 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2455

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 619 (Morgan v. Sheevers) 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

Morgan v. Sheevers, 259 A.D.2d 619, 684 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child visita[620]*620tion proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated July 31, 1997, as, after a hearing, granted his petition for visitation with his son James only to the extent of directing supervised visitation, subject to certain conditions.

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

It is within the sound discretion of the court to determine whether visitation should be supervised (see, Matter of Neuman v Neuman, 243 AD2d 481). The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in this case. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a child visita[620]*620tion proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated July 31, 1997, as, after a hearing, granted his petition for visitation with his son James only to the extent of directing supervised visitation, subject to certain conditions.

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

It is within the sound discretion of the court to determine whether visitation should be supervised (see, Matter of Neuman v Neuman, 243 AD2d 481). The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in this case. S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 619, 684 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-sheevers-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack