From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tiffany P. v. Sharon B.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 28, 2019
172 A.D.3d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

9451

05-28-2019

In re TIFFANY P., Petitioner–Appellant, v. SHARON B., Respondent–Respondent, Morris T., Respondent.

Law Office of Neal D. Futerfas P.C., White Plains (Neal D. Futerfas of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for respondent. Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the child.


Law Office of Neal D. Futerfas P.C., White Plains (Neal D. Futerfas of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for respondent.

Andrew J. Baer, New York, attorney for the child.

Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Kapnick, Oing, Singh, JJ.

Order, Family Court, New York County (J. Machelle Sweeting, J.), entered on or about May 16, 2017, which modified an order of visitation, entered on or about August 16, 2012, with respect to the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly modified the order of visitation, granting the mother four hours of unsupervised visitation with the child, every Sunday. Among other things, during the child's life, the mother's contact with him has been sporadic. The mother was incarcerated for more than two years, when the child was two years old, and her subsequent visitation with him continued to be limited. The mother's visitation alternated between supervised and unsupervised visits, and her visitation was suspended, in June 2015, for a period of time, based on her continuing to speak to the child about his paternity and telling him that she hoped the paternal grandmother who had cared for the child since his infancy, dies. The mother also engaged in other inappropriate conduct with the child, which caused him to feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

There was a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination (see Matter of Frank M. v. Donna W., 44 A.D.3d 495, 844 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1st Dept. 2007] ). Among other things, the court gave proper weight to the forensic expert's report (see Matter of Alfredo J.T. v. Jodi D., 120 A.D.3d 1138, 992 N.Y.S.2d 431 [1st Dept. 2014] ) and the child's clearly expressed wishes ( Matter of Swinson v. Dobson, 101 A.D.3d 1686, 1687, 956 N.Y.S.2d 765 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 862, 965 N.Y.S.2d 81, 987 N.E.2d 642 [2013] ). At the mother's request, the court also heard testimony from her caseworker. On this record, and in light of the court's long history with the parties, a further hearing was unwarranted ( Matter of Oliver S. v. Chemung County Dept. of Social Servs., 162 A.D.2d 820, 821–822, 557 N.Y.S.2d 729 [3d Dept. 1990] ; Matter of Chaim N.[Angela N.], 103 A.D.3d 728, 959 N.Y.S.2d 715 [2d Dept. 2013] ).


Summaries of

Tiffany P. v. Sharon B.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 28, 2019
172 A.D.3d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Tiffany P. v. Sharon B.

Case Details

Full title:In re Tiffany P., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sharon B.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 28, 2019

Citations

172 A.D.3d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
98 N.Y.S.3d 843
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 4114