Sandra A. v. Zoe P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sandra A. v. Zoe P.

255 A.D.2d 222, 679 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12459

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 222 (Sandra A. v. Zoe P.) 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

Sandra A. v. Zoe P., 255 A.D.2d 222, 679 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about October 30, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application for visitation with her two minor grandchildren and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s denial of petitioner’s application for visitation with her grandchildren was a proper exercise of discretion since the evidence, including the testimony of mental health professionals and caseworkers familiar with the matter, was amply supportive of the conclusion that the visitation sought by petitioner would not be in the children’s best interests (see, Lo Presti v Lo Presti, 40 NY2d 522, 526). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about October 30, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application for visitation with her two minor grandchildren and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s denial of petitioner’s application for visitation with her grandchildren was a proper exercise of discretion since the evidence, including the testimony of mental health professionals and caseworkers familiar with the matter, was amply supportive of the conclusion that the visitation sought by petitioner would not be in the children’s best interests (see, Lo Presti v Lo Presti, 40 NY2d 522, 526). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 222, 679 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandra-a-v-zoe-p-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack