MALLORY v. MASHACK (1999)

 Family Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner visitation without conducting a hearing (see, Matter of Langdon v. Stephen, 212 A.D.2d 1066, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1017;  Matter of Fura v. Seddon, 176 A.D.2d 1244, 576 N.Y.S.2d 738;  Matter of Elizabeth D., 127 A.D.2d 971, 513 N.Y.S.2d 56).   The 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's welfare (see, De Pinto v. De Pinto, 98 A.D.2d 985, 470 N.Y.S.2d 234).

 Petitioner contends that he was not informed of his right to counsel.   The record does not establish whether petitioner was so informed and reflects only that petitioner was not present at any of the court proceedings.   In any event, it is well settled that petitioner must be informed of his right to counsel and be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard in court (see, Family Ct. Act § 262;  see also, Matter of Sasha S., 256 A.D.2d 468, 682 N.Y.S.2d 99).

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Cayuga County Family Court for further proceedings.

MEMORANDUM: