Thomas M. R. v. Concetta B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas M. R. v. Concetta B.

199 A.D.2d 396, 608 N.Y.S.2d 89

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 396 (Thomas M. R. v. Concetta B.) 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

Thomas M. R. v. Concetta B., 199 A.D.2d 396, 608 N.Y.S.2d 89 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the Law Guardian for the child appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Auperin, J.), entered June 20, 1991, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for visitation.

Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and determination on the issue of visitation, in accordance herewith.

We are of the opinion that the court’s determination that granting visitation to the petitioner father was in the best interests of the child lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. Since we are unable to make a determination based on this record (cf., Ladizhensky v Ladizhensky, 184 AD2d 756), we remit the matter to the Family Court for a new hearing. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the Law Guardian for the child appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Auperin, J.), entered June 20, 1991, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for visitation.

Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a new hearing and determination on the issue of visitation, in accordance herewith.

We are of the opinion that the court’s determination that granting visitation to the petitioner father was in the best interests of the child lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. Since we are unable to make a determination based on this record (cf., Ladizhensky v Ladizhensky, 184 AD2d 756), we remit the matter to the Family Court for a new hearing. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 396, 608 N.Y.S.2d 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-m-r-v-concetta-b-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack