IN RE: QASIM AHMED ALHASAN (2026)

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

IN RE: QASIM AHMED ALHASAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. INAS ABDUL HUSSEIN ZANBOUR, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
IN RE: INAS ABDUL HUSSEIN ZANBOUR, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. QASIM AHMED ALHASAN, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
IN RE: QASIM AHMED ALHASAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. INAS ABDUL HUSSEIN ZANBOUR, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

550 Decided: July 24, 2026

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CURRAN, MONTOUR, GREENWOOD, AND NOWAK, JJ.

LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. COURTNEY S. RADICK, OSWEGO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.

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-respondent father filed a petition and respondent-petitioner mother filed a cross-petition seeking modification of an order of custody and visitation awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody of the subject children and granting the father certain visitation (prior order). The father sought to modify the prior order by, inter alia, awarding him sole custody of the children and also filed a petition to enforce the prior order, and the mother sought to modify the prior order by requiring that visitation with the father occur only in a therapeutic setting. The father appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed his enforcement petition, effectively denied his modification petition, and effectively granted the mother's cross-petition by granting only therapeutic supervised visitation with the father. We affirm.

We reject the father's contention that Family Court erred in requiring that his visitation be limited to therapeutic supervised contact. “Courts have broad discretion in determining whether visits should be supervised” (Matter of Campbell v January, 114 AD3d 1176, 1177 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 902 [2014]; see Matter of Vito v Dugan, 246 AD3d 1450, 1451 [4th Dept 2026], lv denied — NY3d — [2026]), and that determination “will not be disturbed as long as there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support it” (Matter of Procopio v Procopio, 132 AD3d 1243, 1244 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 915 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the court's determination to impose therapeutic supervised visitation is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Contrary to the father's further contention, he failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the elements necessary to support a finding of civil contempt (see Matter of Fortney v Rivers, 243 AD3d 1296, 1296 [4th Dept 2025], lv dismissed in part & denied in part 45 NY3d 980 [2026]; see generally El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]). We have considered the father's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

Entered: July 24, 2026

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