Sandra C. v. Enrique M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sandra C. v. Enrique M.

92 A.D.3d 577, 938 N.Y.2d 796

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 577 (Sandra C. v. Enrique M.) 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 C. v. Enrique M., 92 A.D.3d 577, 938 N.Y.2d 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Family Court erred in modifying the May 24, 2010 order of [578]*578visitation without first conducting a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether there had been a subsequent change in circumstances and whether modification was in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Santiago v Halbal, 88 AD3d 616 [2011]; Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]). Moreover, the court lacked the authority to condition the mother’s continued visitation upon her undergoing therapy (Schneider v Schneider, 127 AD2d 491, 495 [1987], affd on other grounds sub nom. Paul B.S. v Pamela J.S., 70 NY2d 739 [1987]; Matter of Smith v Dawn F.B., 88 AD3d 729, 730 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 855 [2011]; Matter of Saggese v Steinmetz, 83 AD3d 1144, 1145 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 708 [2011]; Matter of Vieira v Huff, 83 AD3d 1520, 1522 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Catterson, Renwick, AbdusSalaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Family Court erred in modifying the May 24, 2010 order of [578]*578visitation without first conducting a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether there had been a subsequent change in circumstances and whether modification was in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Santiago v Halbal, 88 AD3d 616 [2011]; Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]). Moreover, the court lacked the authority to condition the mother’s continued visitation upon her undergoing therapy (Schneider v Schneider, 127 AD2d 491, 495 [1987], affd on other grounds sub nom. Paul B.S. v Pamela J.S., 70 NY2d 739 [1987]; Matter of Smith v Dawn F.B., 88 AD3d 729, 730 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 855 [2011]; Matter of Saggese v Steinmetz, 83 AD3d 1144, 1145 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 708 [2011]; Matter of Vieira v Huff, 83 AD3d 1520, 1522 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Catterson, Renwick, AbdusSalaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 577, 938 N.Y.2d 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandra-c-v-enrique-m-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack