Young v. Lattanzio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Young v. Lattanzio

295 A.D.2d 1002, 743 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6235

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 1002 (Young v. Lattanzio) 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

Young v. Lattanzio, 295 A.D.2d 1002, 743 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Dillon, J.), entered October 10, [1003]*10032000, which ordered that renewed visitation between petitioner and his son be supervised through the Catholic Charities Therapeutic Supervised Visitation Program.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that renewed visitation between petitioner and his then eight-year-old son, whom petitioner had not seen in over three years, be supervised through the Catholic Charities Therapeutic Supervised Visitation Program (see Matter of Strempler v Savell, 287 AD2d 827, 828; Matter of Fisk v Fisk, 274 AD2d 691, 692-693; Matter of Henrietta D. v Jack K., 272 AD2d 995). Present—Hayes, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Dillon, J.), entered October 10, [1003]*10032000, which ordered that renewed visitation between petitioner and his son be supervised through the Catholic Charities Therapeutic Supervised Visitation Program.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that renewed visitation between petitioner and his then eight-year-old son, whom petitioner had not seen in over three years, be supervised through the Catholic Charities Therapeutic Supervised Visitation Program (see Matter of Strempler v Savell, 287 AD2d 827, 828; Matter of Fisk v Fisk, 274 AD2d 691, 692-693; Matter of Henrietta D. v Jack K., 272 AD2d 995). Present—Hayes, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 1002, 743 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-lattanzio-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack