Stasi v. Penagos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stasi v. Penagos

209 A.D.2d 423, 619 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10946

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 423 (Stasi v. Penagos) 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

Stasi v. Penagos, 209 A.D.2d 423, 619 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Medowar, J.), dated November 30, 1992, as directed that his visitation with the parties’ minor child be supervised.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing that his visits with the parties’ minor child be supervised. When, as here, there has been a full evidentiary hearing, the Family Court’s findings are accorded great weight on appeal (see, D’Errico v D’Errico, 158 AD2d 503, 504). Under the circumstances of this case, supervised visitation is in the best interests of the child (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 174-175), and it "has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Carl J. B. v Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736, 738). Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Medowar, J.), dated November 30, 1992, as directed that his visitation with the parties’ minor child be supervised.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contentions, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing that his visits with the parties’ minor child be supervised. When, as here, there has been a full evidentiary hearing, the Family Court’s findings are accorded great weight on appeal (see, D’Errico v D’Errico, 158 AD2d 503, 504). Under the circumstances of this case, supervised visitation is in the best interests of the child (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 174-175), and it "has a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Carl J. B. v Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736, 738). Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 423, 619 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stasi-v-penagos-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack