Samuel L. J. v. Sherry H.

206 A.D.2d 886, 616 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7809
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 15, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 886 (Samuel L. J. v. Sherry H.) 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
Samuel L. J. v. Sherry H., 206 A.D.2d 886, 616 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner, the natural father of the child, commenced this proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act seeking an order granting him visitation. Petitioner alleged that respondent, the child’s natural mother, denied him visitation with the child. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, Family Court granted petitioner supervised visitation with the child every Saturday from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

The court’s determination regarding custody and visitation issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great •weight and will not be set aside unless it lacks an evidentiary basis in the record (see, Paul G. v Donna G., 175 AD2d 236, 237; D’Errico v D’Errico, 158 AD2d 503, 504; Lenczycki v Lenczycki, 152 AD2d 621, 623). In light of injuries that the child has sustained in the past while in the unsupervised care of petitioner, we conclude that the court properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by allowing weekly supervised visitation. We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Bersani, J.—-Visitation.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Law-ton, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

LOPEZ, WILFREDO v. LUGO, JENNIFER
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Lopez v. Lugo
115 A.D.3d 1237 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Eamer v. Keller
283 A.D.2d 981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Stappenbeck v. Sitter
280 A.D.2d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Dilworth v. Dilworth
269 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Carrigan v. Griffith
267 A.D.2d 1095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Schimmel v. Schimmel
262 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Dube v. Dube
259 A.D.2d 1041 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Tanya R. B. v. Darren W.
254 A.D.2d 813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Bonadonna v. Wilkinson
227 A.D.2d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Muller v. Muller
221 A.D.2d 635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Hill v. Rogers
213 A.D.2d 1079 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 A.D.2d 886, 616 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-l-j-v-sherry-h-nyappdiv-1994.