From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Zeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 2011
86 A.D.3d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

Nos. 2010-04143, (Docket No. V-180-09).

July 12, 2011.

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Supreme Court, Orange County (IDV Part) (Bivona, J.), entered March 25, 2010, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition, in effect, to enforce a prior order of visitation.

Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard N. Lentino, Middletown, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Cohen, JJ.


Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father's contention, there is no evidence that the Supreme Court was biased against him and deprived him of a fair hearing ( see Matter of Richardson v Richardson, 80 AD3d 32, 44; Matter of Jeannie B. v Roger D., 33 AD3d 994). Moreover, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the mother did not violate the prior order of visitation ( see Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d 774; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 54 AD3d 347).


Summaries of

In re Zeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 12, 2011
86 A.D.3d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In re Zeman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CRAIG ZEMAN, Appellant, v. SHANA L. KNIBBS, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 12, 2011

Citations

86 A.D.3d 578 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5967
926 N.Y.S.2d 902

Citing Cases

Stewart v. Moseley

This finding was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Moreover, the father's contentions…

Solovay v. Solovay

There is no merit to the contention of the attorney for the child that the Family Court erred in not ordering…