Williams v. Broome County Department of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Broome County Department of Social Services

289 A.D.2d 883, 734 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12609

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 883 (Williams v. Broome County Department of Social Services) 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

Williams v. Broome County Department of Social Services, 289 A.D.2d 883, 734 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered April 21, 2000, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, to hold respondent in willful violation of a prior order of visitation.

Petitioner is an inmate at the Albion Correctional Facility in Orleans County. By order entered September 20, 1999, Family Court granted petitioner’s mother, Donna Williams, custody of petitioner’s son and also ordered that petitioner “shall have visits with the child as approved and provided by [respondent].” In January 2000, petitioner filed the present petition alleging that she had been provided no visitation with her son and seeking to have respondent held in contempt of court. At an April 10, 2000 hearing, the caseworker assigned to petitioner’s case testified that the driving time from Williams’ residence in Broome County to the Albion Correctional Facility was approximately 3V2 to 5 hours each way, rendering it virtually impossible for respondent to provide transportation for visitation. At the conclusion of the hearing, Family Court dismissed the petition and amended the September 20, 1999 order so as to relieve respondent of any obligation to provide transportation for visitation and place that responsibility on petitioner and her family. Petitioner appeals.

In our view, the contentions advanced on appeal are devoid [884]*884of merit. Surely, Family Court did not err in refusing to receive evidence of a prior visitation order that had been superseded by the order entered September 20, 1999 (see, Matter of Espinosa v Hernandez, 265 AD2d 755). Further, advised of the impracticability of having respondent provide transportation for visitation, Family Court acted within its discretion in relieving respondent of that obligation, which had been voluntarily undertaken by respondent in the first instance.

Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Mercure, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered April 21, 2000, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, to hold respondent in willful violation of a prior order of visitation.

Petitioner is an inmate at the Albion Correctional Facility in Orleans County. By order entered September 20, 1999, Family Court granted petitioner’s mother, Donna Williams, custody of petitioner’s son and also ordered that petitioner “shall have visits with the child as approved and provided by [respondent].” In January 2000, petitioner filed the present petition alleging that she had been provided no visitation with her son and seeking to have respondent held in contempt of court. At an April 10, 2000 hearing, the caseworker assigned to petitioner’s case testified that the driving time from Williams’ residence in Broome County to the Albion Correctional Facility was approximately 3V2 to 5 hours each way, rendering it virtually impossible for respondent to provide transportation for visitation. At the conclusion of the hearing, Family Court dismissed the petition and amended the September 20, 1999 order so as to relieve respondent of any obligation to provide transportation for visitation and place that responsibility on petitioner and her family. Petitioner appeals.

In our view, the contentions advanced on appeal are devoid [884]*884of merit. Surely, Family Court did not err in refusing to receive evidence of a prior visitation order that had been superseded by the order entered September 20, 1999 (see, Matter of Espinosa v Hernandez, 265 AD2d 755). Further, advised of the impracticability of having respondent provide transportation for visitation, Family Court acted within its discretion in relieving respondent of that obligation, which had been voluntarily undertaken by respondent in the first instance.

Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 883, 734 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-broome-county-department-of-social-services-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack