Rodenbaugh v. Gillen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodenbaugh v. Gillen

291 A.D.2d 882, 738 N.Y.S.2d 621, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1052

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 882 (Rodenbaugh v. Gillen) 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

Rodenbaugh v. Gillen, 291 A.D.2d 882, 738 N.Y.S.2d 621, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Seneca County (Bender, J.), entered January 8, 2001, which granted the petition for visitation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order awarding him visitation with his daughter at the correctional facility where he is incarcerated but limiting that visitation to four days per year during specified months. We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court (Bender, J.). We add only that the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to specify the duration of each visit. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the duration of permitted visitation at the correctional facility and, in view of the evidence that the child is uncomfortable in petitioner’s presence, it may be appropriate to limit the duration of the visitation. If respondent acts unreasonably in limiting the duration of the visitation, petitioner may seek modification of the order. Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Seneca County (Bender, J.), entered January 8, 2001, which granted the petition for visitation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order awarding him visitation with his daughter at the correctional facility where he is incarcerated but limiting that visitation to four days per year during specified months. We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court (Bender, J.). We add only that the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to specify the duration of each visit. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the duration of permitted visitation at the correctional facility and, in view of the evidence that the child is uncomfortable in petitioner’s presence, it may be appropriate to limit the duration of the visitation. If respondent acts unreasonably in limiting the duration of the visitation, petitioner may seek modification of the order. Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 882, 738 N.Y.S.2d 621, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodenbaugh-v-gillen-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack