From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Wright v. LaRose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 2000
271 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted February 14, 2000.

April 20, 2000.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Cooney, J.), entered July 7, 1997, as, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition alleging that he violated a consent order of custody and visitation of the same court, entered March 28, 1996, and, upon granting his petition alleging that the mother violated the same order, denied his request to modify that order by granting him additional visitation.

John A. Pappalardo, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The father contends that, upon sustaining his petition alleging that the mother had violated the consent order of custody and visitation, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying his request for make-up visitation. We disagree. The Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning a remedy in matters of custody and visitation, with the paramount concern being the best interests of the child (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167 ). In addition to testimony from the parties and police officers establishing violations by both parties, the evidence included a recommendation from a court-appointed psychologist that the father have no visitation, and an in camera interview with the child. Under the circumstances of this case, the court's determination not to direct additional visitation was in the child's best interests.

Contrary to the father's further contention, the Family Court's determination that he willfully violated the consent order of custody and visitation had a sound and substantial basis in the record (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra; Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer, 159 A.D.2d 113 ). The hearing evidence established that, on several occasions, he arrived for visitation and/or returned the child to the mother's home well after the hours specified in the visitation order.


Summaries of

Matter of Wright v. LaRose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 2000
271 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Wright v. LaRose

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF JENNIFER WRIGHT, respondent, v. MARK LaROSE, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 20, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
706 N.Y.S.2d 148

Citing Cases

Stanley v. Bouzaglou

Above all, this court's paramount focus must be on the best interests of the child. (See, e.g., Matter of…

Stanley v. Bouzaglou

Above all, this Court's paramount focus must be on the best interest of the child. See, e.g., Wright v.…