Reynaldo M. v. Violet F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reynaldo M. v. Violet F.

88 A.D.3d 531, 931 N.Y.2d 213

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 531 (Reynaldo M. v. Violet F.) 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

Reynaldo M. v. Violet F., 88 A.D.3d 531, 931 N.Y.2d 213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The record reflects that the father’s attorney consented to the order, and “no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party” (Matter of Lah De W. [Takisha W.], 78 AD3d 523, 523 [2010]). The attorney was familiar with the matter, had represented the father on numerous prior occasions in the case, and had obtained an adjournment to ascertain the father’s position on a proposed resolution of the application for visitation (see CPLR 2104; Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]).

Were we to consider the father’s appeal, we would find that a fact-finding hearing on the petition was not required because the court had sufficient information to make an informed determination regarding the best interests of the child (see Skidelsky v Skidelsky, 279 AD2d 356 [2001]). The recommendation of the expert and the child’s expressed desire not to visit with the father due to her fear of him were sufficient to warrant denial of the request for visitation. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

The record reflects that the father’s attorney consented to the order, and “no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party” (Matter of Lah De W. [Takisha W.], 78 AD3d 523, 523 [2010]). The attorney was familiar with the matter, had represented the father on numerous prior occasions in the case, and had obtained an adjournment to ascertain the father’s position on a proposed resolution of the application for visitation (see CPLR 2104; Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]).

Were we to consider the father’s appeal, we would find that a fact-finding hearing on the petition was not required because the court had sufficient information to make an informed determination regarding the best interests of the child (see Skidelsky v Skidelsky, 279 AD2d 356 [2001]). The recommendation of the expert and the child’s expressed desire not to visit with the father due to her fear of him were sufficient to warrant denial of the request for visitation. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 531, 931 N.Y.2d 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynaldo-m-v-violet-f-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack