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: Anthony D. DAVIS, Sr., appellant, v. Antoinette DAVIS, etc., respondent.
In a proceeding for visitation pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals (1) from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Cooney, J.), entered November 18, 1997, which found that it is not in the child's best interests to visit with his father, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered November 20, 1997, as denied the petition.
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the appellant's notice of appeal from the fact-finding order is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the fact-finding order and the order are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner father is currently incarcerated for, inter alia, raping and sodomizing 11-year-old Tanya L., the half-sister of Anthony, his now 7-year-old son with whom he is seeking visitation. The County Court issued an order of protection against the father to remain away from the respondent mother and Tanya L. until April 11, 2013. We find that the Family Court's denial of the petition is supported by substantial evidence that visitation would not be in the best interests of Anthony (see, Matter of Tamara H., 228 A.D.2d 598, 644 N.Y.S.2d 539; Matter of Teixeria v. Teixeria, 205 A.D.2d 545, 613 N.Y.S.2d 49; Matter of Simpson v. Finnigan, 202 A.D.2d 592, 609 N.Y.S.2d 265).
Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court was not required to hold a full evidentiary hearing (cf., Kresnicka v. Kresnicka, 48 A.D.2d 929, 369 N.Y.S.2d 522) where, as here, the Family Court examined the mother in the presence of the father's attorney and possessed sufficient information to render an informed determination that was consistent with the child's best interests (see, Matter of Vangas v. Ladas, 259 A.D.2d 755, 687 N.Y.S.2d 399; Matter of Goldman v. Paredes, 258 A.D.2d 524, 686 N.Y.S.2d 306).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 25, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)