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: Stacey Grusz, respondent, v. Justin Simonetti, appellant.
Submitted—December 16, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated February 24, 2011, which, after a hearing, inter alia, awarded him visitation only on alternate weekends from 6:00 P.M. on Friday until 6:00 P.M. on Sunday, alternating holiday visitation, with a maximum of three uninterrupted weeks of visitation per year, and further visitation to which the parties could agree.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In determining custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child (see Matter of Ciccone v. Ciccone, 74 AD3d 1337, 1338; Matter of Haimovici v. Haimovici, 73 AD3d 1058; see also Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 174), which requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances (see Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 95). Since the Family Court's determination is “largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents” (Matter of Haimovici v. Haimovici, 73 AD3d at 1058), “such determination should not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis” in the record (Matter of Andrews v. Mouzon, 80 AD3d 761, 763; see Matter of Wiebke v. Wiebke, 77 AD3d 964; Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer, 159 A.D.2d 113, 116–118).
Contrary to the father's contention, there was a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's denial of his request for additional midweek visitation. Moreover, the father was awarded liberal visitation which affords him a meaningful opportunity to maintain a close relationship with the child (see Matter of Pena v. Pena, 68 AD3d 1000, 1001; Pollack v. Pollack, 56 AD3d 637, 639; Matter of Hartman v. Hartman, 214 A.D.2d 780, 782; Maloney v. Maloney, 208 A.D.2d 603, 604).
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, ENG and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of 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.
Docket No: 2011–03468 (Docket No. V–3987–10)
Decided: January 10, 2012
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)