Zwillman v. Kull

90 A.D.3d 774, 934 N.Y.2d 333
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 13, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 774 (Zwillman v. Kull) 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
Zwillman v. Kull, 90 A.D.3d 774, 934 N.Y.2d 333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[775]*775When adjudicating visitation rights, the court’s first concern is the welfare and interests of the child. Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and the child (see Matter of Aguirre v Romano, 73 AD3d 912 [2010]; Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637 [2008]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837 [2008]; McGrath v D’Angio-McGrath, 42 AD3d 440 [2007]; Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775 [1984]). The best interests of the child lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents. In order for the noncustodial parent to develop a meaningful, nurturing relationship with the child, visitation must be frequent and regular. Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as where visitation would be detrimental to the child’s well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges (see Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637 [2008]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837 [2008]; Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775 [1984]).

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the father’s petition to modify the visitation schedule set forth in the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce entered June 7, 2007. Here, the father established that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification was necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child (see Matter of Pavone v Bronson, 88 AD3d 724 [2011]; Matter of Gant v Chambliss, 86 AD3d 612 [2011]; Matter of Francois v Grimm, 84 AD3d 1082 [2011]; Matter of Garcia v Fountain, 82 AD3d 979 [2011]). The Family Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and there is no basis to disturb it (see Matter of Manzella v Milano, 82 AD3d 1242 [2011]; Matter of Waldron v Dussek, 48 AD3d 471 [2008]; Matter of Steinhauser v Haas, 40 AD3d 863 [2007]). Mastro, A.EJ, Hall, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Jackson v. Hall
2025 NY Slip Op 00447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Jahari BB. v. Zada CC.
2024 NY Slip Op 05922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Alexis A.T. v. Gary C.T.
165 N.Y.S.3d 288 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Brown v. Simon
2021 NY Slip Op 03831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Munroe v. Smith
2020 NY Slip Op 08066 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Cabano v. Petrella
2019 NY Slip Op 1210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Gonzalez v. Santiago
2018 NY Slip Op 8653 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Pena v. Tiburcio
2018 NY Slip Op 3981 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Greenberg v. Greenberg
2016 NY Slip Op 7159 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Rodriguez-Donaghy v. Donaghy
138 A.D.3d 1123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Stones v. Vandenberge
127 A.D.3d 1213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Anthony M.P. v. Ta-Mirra J.H.
125 A.D.3d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Munoz v. Edmonds-Munoz
123 A.D.3d 1038 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Matter of Rodriguez v. Silva
121 A.D.3d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Matter of Diaz v. Garcia
119 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Rivera v. Fowler
112 A.D.3d 835 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Orellana v. Orellana
112 A.D.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Grunwald v. Grunwald
108 A.D.3d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Jacob P.
107 A.D.3d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ross v. Morrison
98 A.D.3d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.3d 774, 934 N.Y.2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zwillman-v-kull-nyappdiv-2011.