Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Sandra C. v. Enrique M.

Sandra C. v. Enrique M.

92 A.D.3d 577, 938 N.Y.2d 796
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 23, 2012·Published

Opinion

Family Court erred in modifying the May 24, 2010 order of [578] visitation 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

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

92 A.D.3d 577 (Sandra C. v. Enrique M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

VIEIRA, LIONEL T. v. HUFF, DIANE P.
83 A.D.3d 1520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Paul B. S. v. Pamela J. S.
514 N.E.2d 382 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
Saggese v. Steinmetz
83 A.D.3d 1144 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Santiago v. Halbal
88 A.D.3d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Smith v. Dawn F.B.
88 A.D.3d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Schneider v. Schneider
127 A.D.2d 491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)