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

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 560 (Ritz v. Otero) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 560, 697 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ritz-v-otero-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack