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.
GREGORY C., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NYREE S., Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about October 5, 2002, which denied petitioner's application for contact and/or visitation with the parties' child, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 13, 2001, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic and abandoned.
While the denial of visitation to a noncustodial parent is a drastic result, it is warranted where compelling reasons and substantial evidence show that visitation would be detrimental to the child (Matter of Brett K. v. Brian L., 6 A.D.3d 349, 351-352, 777 N.Y.S.2d 35 [2004] ). That is the case here. Petitioner, who shortly before the child's birth in 1993 was sentenced to prison for up to 25 years for involvement in a criminal enterprise that engaged in murder for hire, has never had any contact with the child, and the child does not know that petitioner is his father. There is also credited evidence that petitioner physically abused respondent when she was pregnant, and sent her threatening letters from prison (see Matter of DeJesus v. Tinoco, 267 A.D.2d 308, 699 N.Y.S.2d 905 [1999] ). Nor is Family Court's finding, based on its evaluation of petitioner's telephonic testimony, that petitioner lacks any understanding of the possible harm his sudden immersion into the child's life might cause the child, rendered unsupportable by the lack of forensic evidence (cf. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173-174, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). We note that the Law Guardian, while not opposed to mail and perhaps telephone contact, recommended that any such contact be accompanied by counseling to help the child cope with learning that petitioner is his father. We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them unavailing.
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.
Decided: March 03, 2005
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)