Razo v. Leyva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Razo v. Leyva

3 A.D.3d 571, 771 N.Y.S.2d 168

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 571 (Razo v. Leyva) 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

Razo v. Leyva, 3 A.D.3d 571, 771 N.Y.S.2d 168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated July 26, 2002, which dismissed, without a hearing, his petition for visitation with the parties’ daughter.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father did not seek visitation with his daughter until she was nearly 10 years old and, concededly, had no relationship with her. Further, he did not provide any financial support for her. The Law Guardian indicated that the daughter did not wish to have a relationship with her father, whom she had never met. Under the circumstances, the Family Court properly dismissed the father’s petition without a hearing as it possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision consistent with the child’s best interests (see Matter of Mobley v Ishmael, [572]*572285 AD2d 648 [2001]; Matter of Glenn T. v Donna U., 226 AD2d 803 [1996]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated July 26, 2002, which dismissed, without a hearing, his petition for visitation with the parties’ daughter.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father did not seek visitation with his daughter until she was nearly 10 years old and, concededly, had no relationship with her. Further, he did not provide any financial support for her. The Law Guardian indicated that the daughter did not wish to have a relationship with her father, whom she had never met. Under the circumstances, the Family Court properly dismissed the father’s petition without a hearing as it possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision consistent with the child’s best interests (see Matter of Mobley v Ishmael, [572]*572285 AD2d 648 [2001]; Matter of Glenn T. v Donna U., 226 AD2d 803 [1996]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 571, 771 N.Y.S.2d 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/razo-v-leyva-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack