Smith v. DiFusco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. DiFusco

282 A.D.2d 753, 724 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4292

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

DecidedApril 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 753 (Smith v. DiFusco) 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

Smith v. DiFusco, 282 A.D.2d 753, 724 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to modify an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), which granted visitation to the father, the appeal is from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), entered March 23, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and modified the father’s visitation rights, and (2) an order of the same court, entered April 13, 2000, which amended the order entered March 23, 2000, by adding a provision thereto that the father would not have visitation on Mother’s Day.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The appellant argues that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to appoint a Law Guardian for the parties’ child. “[T]he appointment of a Law Guardian * * * is discretionary” (Blauvelt v Blauvelt, 219 AD2d 694), and “there is no requirement that the court invariably appoint a Law Guardian” (Richard D. v Wendy P., 47 NY2d 943, 944). Here, while the parties discussed the possible appointment of a Law Guardian at the outset, neither party provided the Family Court with the financial data necessary to appoint a Law Guardian. Further, when the appellant was specifically asked during the proceeding whether he wanted a Law Guardian appointed for the child, he replied in the negative. When the Family Court again raised the subject of a Law Guardian the appellant remained silent.

Both parents sought a modification of the father’s visitation schedule on the ground of changed circumstances, and because the child entered school. “It is the firmly established policy of this State * * * that, wherever possible, the best interests of a child lie in his [or her] being nurtured and guided by both of his [or her] natural parents” (Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191, 193, affd 56 NY2d 938). Here, the Family Court’s decision promoted the best interests of the child by permitting him to be nurtured by both parents. Therefore it will not be disturbed. Bracken, P. J., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to modify an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), which granted visitation to the father, the appeal is from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), entered March 23, 2000, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and modified the father’s visitation rights, and (2) an order of the same court, entered April 13, 2000, which amended the order entered March 23, 2000, by adding a provision thereto that the father would not have visitation on Mother’s Day.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The appellant argues that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to appoint a Law Guardian for the parties’ child. “[T]he appointment of a Law Guardian * * * is discretionary” (Blauvelt v Blauvelt, 219 AD2d 694), and “there is no requirement that the court invariably appoint a Law Guardian” (Richard D. v Wendy P., 47 NY2d 943, 944). Here, while the parties discussed the possible appointment of a Law Guardian at the outset, neither party provided the Family Court with the financial data necessary to appoint a Law Guardian. Further, when the appellant was specifically asked during the proceeding whether he wanted a Law Guardian appointed for the child, he replied in the negative. When the Family Court again raised the subject of a Law Guardian the appellant remained silent.

Both parents sought a modification of the father’s visitation schedule on the ground of changed circumstances, and because the child entered school. “It is the firmly established policy of this State * * * that, wherever possible, the best interests of a child lie in his [or her] being nurtured and guided by both of his [or her] natural parents” (Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191, 193, affd 56 NY2d 938). Here, the Family Court’s decision promoted the best interests of the child by permitting him to be nurtured by both parents. Therefore it will not be disturbed. Bracken, P. J., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 753, 724 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-difusco-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack