IN RE: ERIN S. KELLEY (2023)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: ERIN S. KELLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. ROBERT CRAMMOND, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

447 Decided: July 28, 2023

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, MONTOUR, AND OGDEN, JJ.

PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed her violation petitions against respondent father and granted her petition seeking to modify an existing custody and visitation order to the extent of requiring that the child not be in the presence of the father's wife without “other adult supervision unless ․ [the father] is substantially present.” Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court did not err in dismissing the violation petitions inasmuch as the mother failed to establish that the father's conduct “defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced any right or remedy to which she was entitled” (Matter of Hall v Hawthorne, 99 AD3d 1237, 1238 [4th Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Oravec v Oravec, 89 AD3d 1475, 1475 [4th Dept 2011]).

The mother further contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to prohibit the father's wife from having any contact with the child and instead allowing contact with other adult supervision. We reject that contention. “Family Court is afforded wide discretion in crafting an appropriate visitation schedule ․ and has the power to impose restrictions on [a] child[ ]’s interactions with third parties during visitation if it is in the child[ ]’s best interests to do so” (Matter of Santana v Barnes, 203 AD3d 1561, 1561 [4th Dept 2022]; see Matter of Chromczak v Salek, 173 AD3d 1750, 1751-1752 [4th Dept 2019]). We see no basis to disturb the court's determination inasmuch as it “is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record,” including the Lincoln hearing (Santana, 203 AD3d at 1561; see Matter of Carr v Stebbins, 123 AD3d 1164, 1165 [3d Dept 2014]; see generally Matter of Allen v Boswell, 149 AD3d 1528, 1529 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 902 [2017]).

Entered: July 28, 2023

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network