Patterson v. Patterson

92 A.D.3d 682, 937 N.Y.2d 890
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 682 (Patterson v. Patterson) 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
Patterson v. Patterson, 92 A.D.3d 682, 937 N.Y.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

[683]*683Contrary to the father’s contention, a hearing is not necessary where, as here, the Family Court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the subject child’s best interests (see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 60 AD3d 658 [2009]; Matter of Vanjak v Pesa, 26 AD3d 512 [2006]; Assini v Assini, 11 AD3d 417, 418 [2004]; Matter of Smith v Molody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364 [2003]; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]; Webster v Webster, 163 AD2d 178 [1990]). The Family Court examined the parents over several court appearances, and conducted an in camera interview of the child to ascertain his wishes. These proceedings were sufficient to enable the Family Court to make an informed and provident determination on the issue of visitation (see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 60 AD3d 658 [2009]; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]), and there is no basis to overturn the Family Court’s determination. Florio, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Julian B. v. Williams
97 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.3d 682, 937 N.Y.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-patterson-nyappdiv-2012.