Turner v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turner v. King

79 A.D.2d 654, 433 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14021

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 A.D.2d 654 (Turner v. King) 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

Turner v. King, 79 A.D.2d 654, 433 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the petitioner father, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 27, 1979, as ordered that his daughter shall not be forced to visit with him, unless she so elects. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the second and third decretal paragraphs are deleted therefrom, and the matter is remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the issue of visitation by the father, which shall be presided over by another Justice. It was inappropriate for the court to deprive the father of all his visitation rights based solely on a conference with the daughter (cf. Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 771). Under the circumstances of this case, the parties should have been given the opportunity to present evidence on the issue of visitation in open court (cf. Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270; Heely v Heely, 69 AD2d 810). We also note that the issue of the mother’s contempt for failure to comply with certain prior judgments is not properly before us (see CPLR 5501, subd [a], par 1). Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the petitioner father, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 27, 1979, as ordered that his daughter shall not be forced to visit with him, unless she so elects. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the second and third decretal paragraphs are deleted therefrom, and the matter is remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the issue of visitation by the father, which shall be presided over by another Justice. It was inappropriate for the court to deprive the father of all his visitation rights based solely on a conference with the daughter (cf. Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 771). Under the circumstances of this case, the parties should have been given the opportunity to present evidence on the issue of visitation in open court (cf. Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270; Heely v Heely, 69 AD2d 810). We also note that the issue of the mother’s contempt for failure to comply with certain prior judgments is not properly before us (see CPLR 5501, subd [a], par 1). Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 654, 433 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-king-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack