Vasquez v. Negron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vasquez v. Negron

176 A.D.2d 691, 575 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13752

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 691 (Vasquez v. Negron) 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

Vasquez v. Negron, 176 A.D.2d 691, 575 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about December 6, 1990, which directed that the natural father have visitation with his child on alternate weekends from Friday 7:00 p.m., until Sunday 12:00 noon, effective December 7, 1990, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The non-custodial parent, the petitioner-father, argues that Family Court intruded upon his First Amendment rights when it stated at a hearing preceding the final order of visitation that it was prepared to sign an order to preclude petitioner from interfering with the child’s religious upbringing or exposing the child to the father’s religion. The Family Court’s final order of visitation is addressed solely to the issue of a visitation schedule. Petitioner’s arguments as to the religious issues are premature. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about December 6, 1990, which directed that the natural father have visitation with his child on alternate weekends from Friday 7:00 p.m., until Sunday 12:00 noon, effective December 7, 1990, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The non-custodial parent, the petitioner-father, argues that Family Court intruded upon his First Amendment rights when it stated at a hearing preceding the final order of visitation that it was prepared to sign an order to preclude petitioner from interfering with the child’s religious upbringing or exposing the child to the father’s religion. The Family Court’s final order of visitation is addressed solely to the issue of a visitation schedule. Petitioner’s arguments as to the religious issues are premature. Concur — Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 691, 575 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-v-negron-nyappdiv-1991.