Sturm v. Lyding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sturm v. Lyding

101 A.D.2d 1026, 476 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18775

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

DecidedMay 25, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 A.D.2d 1026 (Sturm v. Lyding) 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

Sturm v. Lyding, 101 A.D.2d 1026, 476 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Niagara County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: We recognize that as a practical matter further efforts to compel compliance with the order of visitation may prove futile in view of Suzanne’s age and the evident determination of her grandmother to frustrate such efforts. Nevertheless, “[visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child” (Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175). Petitioner is Suzanne’s sole living natural parent and amicable visitation, if possible, would be in the interests of both. At the very least, petitioner is entitled to know whether the decision not to comply with the court order was made of his daughter’s own free will, and Suzanne is entitled to an opportunity to make her own wishes known to petitioner. Family Court should therefore hold a further hearing or informal conference at which both petitioner and Suzanne are present in the absence of the grandmother at which efforts should be made to work out arrangements for visitation in compliance with the prior order as modified in Sturm v Lyding (96 AD2d 731). (Appeal from order of Niagara County Family Court, Halpin, J. — visitation.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Niagara County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: We recognize that as a practical matter further efforts to compel compliance with the order of visitation may prove futile in view of Suzanne’s age and the evident determination of her grandmother to frustrate such efforts. Nevertheless, “[visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child” (Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175). Petitioner is Suzanne’s sole living natural parent and amicable visitation, if possible, would be in the interests of both. At the very least, petitioner is entitled to know whether the decision not to comply with the court order was made of his daughter’s own free will, and Suzanne is entitled to an opportunity to make her own wishes known to petitioner. Family Court should therefore hold a further hearing or informal conference at which both petitioner and Suzanne are present in the absence of the grandmother at which efforts should be made to work out arrangements for visitation in compliance with the prior order as modified in Sturm v Lyding (96 AD2d 731). (Appeal from order of Niagara County Family Court, Halpin, J. — visitation.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 1026, 476 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturm-v-lyding-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack