Rubin v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rubin v. Rubin

95 A.D.2d 851, 464 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18797

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

DecidedJune 27, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 95 A.D.2d 851 (Rubin v. Rubin) 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

Rubin v. Rubin, 95 A.D.2d 851, 464 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated February 3, 1982, which denied his application for visitation rights and ordered him to pay respondent $1,500 for counsel fees. Judgment modified by deleting the provision denying petitioner’s application for visitation, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new hearing in accordance herewith. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The hearing shall be conducted with all convenient speed and shall be heard before a Justice other than the one who presided at the hearing under review. Upon this record, we are of the view that the best interests of the children required that petitioner, the noncustodial parent, be permitted supervised visitation with the parties’ children at some neutral site. However, in light of the long delay between the prior hearing and determination thereon and the present time, we find that a new hearing is necessary to determine whether petitioner should have visitation at this time, and if so, whether such event should take place in a chaperoned or unchaperoned setting. At the very least, prior to the new hearing, the court should request a new investigation by the Probation Department including a full evaluation and a psychiatric and psychological study of all parties the Probation Department deems necessary (by a psychiatrist who has not previously examined any of the parties). Further, in view of the fact that the children are now more mature, we feel that the court may be aided in reaching its determination by obtaining their input with respect to visitation. The counsel fees awarded constituted a proper exercise of Special Term’s discretion. Damiani, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated February 3, 1982, which denied his application for visitation rights and ordered him to pay respondent $1,500 for counsel fees. Judgment modified by deleting the provision denying petitioner’s application for visitation, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new hearing in accordance herewith. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The hearing shall be conducted with all convenient speed and shall be heard before a Justice other than the one who presided at the hearing under review. Upon this record, we are of the view that the best interests of the children required that petitioner, the noncustodial parent, be permitted supervised visitation with the parties’ children at some neutral site. However, in light of the long delay between the prior hearing and determination thereon and the present time, we find that a new hearing is necessary to determine whether petitioner should have visitation at this time, and if so, whether such event should take place in a chaperoned or unchaperoned setting. At the very least, prior to the new hearing, the court should request a new investigation by the Probation Department including a full evaluation and a psychiatric and psychological study of all parties the Probation Department deems necessary (by a psychiatrist who has not previously examined any of the parties). Further, in view of the fact that the children are now more mature, we feel that the court may be aided in reaching its determination by obtaining their input with respect to visitation. The counsel fees awarded constituted a proper exercise of Special Term’s discretion. Damiani, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.2d 851, 464 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-rubin-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack