Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Hamdi ASHKAR, Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant, v. Wegdan ASHKAR, Respondent-Petitioner-Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.)
Family Court properly determined that it is in the best interests of the parties' two children to award sole custody to respondent (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the court did not err in suspending his visitation rights until he completed an anger management course. We recognize that petitioner had exercised some limited visitation pending the trial and that “[t]he denial of visitation to a parent is a drastic remedy that is warranted only where there are compelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation is detrimental to the child[ren]'s welfare” (Matter of Mallory v. Mashack, 266 A.D.2d 907, 698 N.Y.S.2d 387). That test is met here. The court credited the testimony of respondent concerning the condition of the children when they returned from visitation and the testimony of her father concerning several verbal and physical altercations that were initiated by petitioner against him when he transported the children for visitation because of the existence of an order of protection in favor of respondent. The court's credibility determination will not be disturbed where, as here, it is clearly supported by the record (see, Matter of Livingston County Dept. of Social Servs. [Joshua M.] v. Kimberly M., 278 A.D.2d 902, 718 N.Y.S.2d 684 [decided herewith]).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 27, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)