Perez v. Hughes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Hughes

33 A.D.3d 1008, 822 N.Y.S.2d 713

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 1008 (Perez v. Hughes) 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

Perez v. Hughes, 33 A.D.3d 1008, 822 N.Y.S.2d 713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated June 2, 2005, which, after a hearing, inter alia, reduced his visitation schedule to each Sunday from 11:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m.

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

“The determination of the Family Court, which saw and heard the witnesses, is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Akyuz v Akyuz, 30 AD3d 511 [2006]; see Matter of Rho v Rho, 19 AD3d 605, 606 [2005]). Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court’s findings, coupled with the record before us, are sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review (see CPLR 4213 [b]), and amply support the court’s determination to modify the father’s visitation schedule (see Matter of Thaxton v Morro, 222 AD2d 955, 956 [1995]; see also Matter ofAkyuz v Akyuz, supra). Adams, J.E, Skelos, Fisher and Covello, 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 father appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated June 2, 2005, which, after a hearing, inter alia, reduced his visitation schedule to each Sunday from 11:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m.

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

“The determination of the Family Court, which saw and heard the witnesses, is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Akyuz v Akyuz, 30 AD3d 511 [2006]; see Matter of Rho v Rho, 19 AD3d 605, 606 [2005]). Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court’s findings, coupled with the record before us, are sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review (see CPLR 4213 [b]), and amply support the court’s determination to modify the father’s visitation schedule (see Matter of Thaxton v Morro, 222 AD2d 955, 956 [1995]; see also Matter ofAkyuz v Akyuz, supra). Adams, J.E, Skelos, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 1008, 822 N.Y.S.2d 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-hughes-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack