Russo v. Russo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Russo

282 A.D.2d 610, 723 N.Y.S.2d 405, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3821

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

DecidedApril 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 610 (Russo v. Russo) 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

Russo v. Russo, 282 A.D.2d 610, 723 N.Y.S.2d 405, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated January 13, 1999, which, without a hearing, denied his petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his petition for visitation with his children without conducting a hearing. The father was incarcerated upon his conviction for attempted murder in the second degree, having stabbed the mother repeatedly while the children were in the house. The mother and children have required years of therapy as a result, and the therapist for the children recommended against visitation. The father failed to reply to the mother’s answer to his petition, despite having an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the determination of the Family Court had a sound basis and therefore should not be disturbed (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1] [a]; Matter of DeJesus v Tinoco, 267 AD2d 308; Matter of Hadsell v Hadsell, 249 AD2d 853; Matter of Teixeria v Teixeria, 205 AD2d 545; Ceaser A. R. v Raquel D., 179 AD2d 574). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ„, concur.

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

—In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated January 13, 1999, which, without a hearing, denied his petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his petition for visitation with his children without conducting a hearing. The father was incarcerated upon his conviction for attempted murder in the second degree, having stabbed the mother repeatedly while the children were in the house. The mother and children have required years of therapy as a result, and the therapist for the children recommended against visitation. The father failed to reply to the mother’s answer to his petition, despite having an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the determination of the Family Court had a sound basis and therefore should not be disturbed (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1] [a]; Matter of DeJesus v Tinoco, 267 AD2d 308; Matter of Hadsell v Hadsell, 249 AD2d 853; Matter of Teixeria v Teixeria, 205 AD2d 545; Ceaser A. R. v Raquel D., 179 AD2d 574). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ„, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 610, 723 N.Y.S.2d 405, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-russo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack