Ritz v. Otero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ritz v. Otero

265 A.D.2d 560, 697 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10744

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1999·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Clark, J.), dated December 13, 1996, as amended December 20, 1996, which granted the father’s petition for unsupervised visitation with the child.

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

The natural right of visitation jointly enjoyed by the noncustodial parent and the child is more precious than any property right (see, Resnick v Zoldan, 134 AD2d 246; Biamby v Biamby, 114 AD2d 830), and it may not be denied absent a showing of exceptional circumstances (see, Kozak v Kozak, 111 AD2d 842; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191). There is no evidence that the father is an abusive or unfit parent whose visitation must be supervised. Therefore, the order of the Family Court appears to be in the best interests of the child and should not be disturbed.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Clark, J.), dated December 13, 1996, as amended December 20, 1996, which granted the father’s petition for unsupervised visitation with the child.

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

The natural right of visitation jointly enjoyed by the noncustodial parent and the child is more precious than any property right (see, Resnick v Zoldan, 134 AD2d 246; Biamby v Biamby, 114 AD2d 830), and it may not be denied absent a showing of exceptional circumstances (see, Kozak v Kozak, 111 AD2d 842; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191). There is no evidence that the father is an abusive or unfit parent whose visitation must be supervised. Therefore, the order of the Family Court appears to be in the best interests of the child and should not be disturbed.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Ritz v. Otero, 265 A.D.2d 560, 697 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

265 A.D.2d 560 (Ritz v. Otero) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related