Matter of Gerald v. Lucille

15 Citing cases

  1. Griffin v. Danzy

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 2324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

    "Since custody and visitation determinations necessarily depend[ ] to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the court's findings'" (Matter of James M. v Kevin M., 99 AD3d 911, 913, quoting Matter of Elliott v Felder, 69 AD3d 623, 623). Thus, the determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter within the sound discretion of the Family Court and should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blazek v Zavelo, 127 AD3d at 854; Matter of Anthony M.P. v Ta-Mirra J.H., 125 AD3d at 868; Matter of Dolan v Masterton, 121 AD3d 979, 981; Irizarry v Irizarry, 115 AD3d 913, 915; Matter of Brian M. v Nancy M., 227 AD2d 404, 404; Matter of Gerald D. v Lucille S., 188 AD2d 650, 650). Here, the record does not support a conclusion that overnight, unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the children.

  2. Griffin v. Danzy

    160 A.D.3d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    er of Anthony M.P. v. Ta–Mirra J.H., 125 A.D.3d at 868, 4 N.Y.S.3d 117 ). "Since custody and visitation determinations ‘necessarily depend[ ] to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded the court's findings' " ( Matter of James M. v. Kevin M., 99 A.D.3d 911, 913, 952 N.Y.S.2d 257, quoting Matter of Elliott v. Felder, 69 A.D.3d 623, 623, 892 N.Y.S.2d 491 ). Thus, the determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter within the sound discretion of the Family Court and should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blazek v. Zavelo, 127 A.D.3d at 854, 6 N.Y.S.3d 612; Matter of Anthony M.P. v. Ta–Mirra J.H., 125 A.D.3d at 868, 4 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; Matter of Dolan v. Masterton, 121 A.D.3d 979, 981, 995 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 915, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; Matter of Brian M. v. Nancy M., 227 A.D.2d 404, 404, 642 N.Y.S.2d 66 ; Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 A.D.2d 650, 650, 591 N.Y.S.2d 528 ). Here, the record does not support a conclusion that overnight, unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the children.

  3. Blazek v. Zavelo

    127 A.D.3d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 6 times

    children occur in the State of New York; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. A determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the trial court, based upon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Sterling v. Silva, 124 A.D.3d 669, 1 N.Y.S.3d 327 ; Matter of Morgan v. Sheevers, 259 A.D.2d 619, 684 N.Y.S.2d 918 ). “Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child” (Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170, 175, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377 ; see Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ), and “the best interests of a child lie in his [or her] being nurtured and guided by both of his [or her] parents” (Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, 193, 441 N.Y.S.2d 494, affd. 56 N.Y.2d 938, 453 N.Y.S.2d 609, 439 N.E.2d 324 ; see Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d at 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ; Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 A.D.2d 650, 591 N.Y.S.2d 528 ). “Absent extraordinary circumstances, where visitation would be detrimental to the child's well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges” (Matter of Rodriguez v. Silva, 121 A.D.3d 794, 795, 993 N.Y.S.2d 733 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Pollack v. Pollack, 56 A.D.3d 637, 868 N.Y.S.2d 243 ; Twersky v. Twersky, 103 A.D.2d 775, 477 N.Y.S.2d 409 ). “Supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Irizarry v. Irizarry, 115 A.D.3d 913, 914, 982 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; see Matter of Bullinger v. Costa, 63 A.D.3d 735, 880 N.Y.S.2d 336 ; Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 44 A.D.3d 1022, 845 N.Y.S.2d 371 ; Matter of Powell v. Blumenthal, 35 A.D.3d 615, 827 N.Y.S.2d 187 ). Here, contrary to the contentions of the father and the attorney for the children, there is nothing in the record to warrant supervision of the mother's visitation with the subject children (see Irizarry

  4. Cervera v. Bressler

    50 A.D.3d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 60 times

    "Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child" ( Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175; see Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775), and "the best interests of a child lie in his being nurtured and guided by both of his natural parents" ( Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191, 193, affd 56 NY2d 938; see Matter of Gerald D. v Lucille S., 188 AD2d 650). For a noncustodial parent to develop a meaningful, nurturing relationship with his or her child, "visitation must be frequent and regular" ( Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d at 194, affd 56 NY2d 938; see Matter of Graves v Smith, 264 AD2d 844; Matter of Gerald D. v Lucille S., 188 AD2d at 650).

  5. In the Matter of Farina v. McKevitt

    30 A.D.3d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

    Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and child ( see Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175). Here, while the child did express a preference to end visitation with the father, the record supports the Family Court's determination that, in light of the child's age, maturity, and susceptibility to influence from the mother, visitation was nevertheless in the child's best interests ( see Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Matter of Brian M. v. Nancy M., 227 AD2d 404; Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 AD2d 650). The mother's remaining contention is not properly before this Court.

  6. In the Matter of Juliane M

    23 A.D.3d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 6 times

    The determination of visitation is entrusted to the court based upon the best interests of the children ( see Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Matter of Kachelhofer v. Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366). However, we decline to disturb the determination made here, as the record supports the conclusion that the award of visitation to the mother was in the children's best interests ( see Matter of Orner v. Orner, 263 AD2d 544; Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 AD2d 650).

  7. In the Matter of Andrews v. Coryea

    21 A.D.3d 1350 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    Memorandum: Family Court properly dismissed the petition seeking to modify a prior order by suspending respondent's visitation with the parties' two children provided for therein. "Visitation by a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in the child[ren]'s best interest and should be denied only in exceptional situations, such as where substantial evidence reveals that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child[ren]" ( Matter of Frierson v. Goldston, 9 AD3d 612, 614). The record supports the court's determination that petitioner failed to establish at the hearing on the petition that respondent's continued visitation with the children posed any risk to them or would be detrimental to their welfare ( see Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 AD2d 650). Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in precluding petitioner from presenting testimony regarding hearsay statements made by the children concerning petitioner's allegations that respondent abused the children ( see Matter of Pratt v. Wood, 210 AD2d 741, 742), we conclude that the error is harmless because the substance of those hearsay statements was otherwise before the court ( see Matter of De Felice v. De Felice, 303 AD2d 1017, 1017-1018).

  8. Purcell v. Purcell

    5 A.D.3d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    The plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to direct that the former husband's visitation with the parties' minor children be supervised was based solely on unsupported hearsay allegations regarding the defendant's alleged unfitness to have unsupervised visitation. Thus, the Family Court properly denied that branch of the motion since the plaintiff failed to establish that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the children's well being ( see Matter of Graves v. Smith, 264 A.D.2d 844; Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 A.D.2d 650). However, we note that in the future the Supreme Court should not conduct an in camera interview of a minor in the absence of the Law Guardian ( see Dwyer v. DeLa Torre, 252 A.D.2d 695).

  9. Matter of Graves v. Smith

    264 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    To be meaningful, visitation must be frequent and regular ( Weiss v. Weiss, supra 52 N.Y.2d 170, 175; Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, affd. 56 N.Y.2d 938). Here, there was an insufficient showing that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's well-being ( see, Matter of Nancy M. v. Brian M., 227 A.D.2d 404; Matter of Gerald D. v. Lucille S., 188 A.D.2d 650). BRACKEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, GOLDSTEIN, and McGINITY, JJ., concur.

  10. In re Connelly v. Velez

    233 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

    Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Upon a review of the hearing testimony, we agree with the Family Court that there is no indication that unsupervised visitation by the natural father poses any risk to the child, or that such visitation is against the best interests of the child ( see, Matter of Kilstein v MacDowell, 226 AD2d 727; Matter of Gerald D. v Lucille S., 188 AD2d 650; Koppenhoefer v Koppenhoefer, 159 AD2d 113, 116).