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.
IN RE: JEREMY S., Petitioner-Respondent, v. FRANSELY P., Respondent-Appellant.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Judith D. Waksberg, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted petitioner father's petition to the extent of directing respondent mother to produce the subject children for visitation at the Manhattan side of the Staten Island Ferry Terminal on alternating Fridays for visitation with the father, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's determination that it was in the children's best interest for the mother to produce them for visits with the father at the Manhattan side of the Staten Island Ferry terminal on alternating Fridays is supported by the record (see Matter of Kaleem U. v. Halima S., 181 A.D.3d 492, 117 N.Y.S.3d 846 [1st Dept. 2020], citing Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982]). The court properly took into consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the children's wishes, as expressed through the Attorney for the Children (AFC), as well as the burden and costs involved for both parties (see Matter of William G. v. Saline G., 132 A.D.3d 440, 441, 17 N.Y.S.3d 133 [1st Dept. 2015]; cf. Matter of Cornielle v. Rosado, 231 A.D.3d 824, 827–828, 220 N.Y.S.3d 763 [2d Dept. 2024]). There is no basis to disturb the court's finding that the father's testimony was more credible than the mother's in determining the feasibility of bringing the children to the ferry terminal (see Kaleem U., 181 A.D.3d 492, 117 N.Y.S.3d 846).
The mother's claim that the AFC should have remained “mute” during the proceedings is unpreserved (see Matter of Belkis N. v. Gilberto N., 165 A.D.3d 489, 490, 83 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept. 2018]). In any event, this argument is unavailing because the AFC is authorized to advocate on the children's behalf for a manner of transportation and visitation schedule that benefits them (see Matter of Amanda YY. Faisal ZZ., 198 A.D.3d 1125, 1129, 157 N.Y.S.3d 114 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 908, 170 N.Y.S.3d 546, 190 N.E.3d 570 [2022]).
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: 5636
Decided: January 22, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)