IN RE: Binong Xu (2012)

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

IN RE: Binong Xu, respondent, v. Mark Sullivan, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Mark Sullivan, appellant, v Binong Xu, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) In the Matter of Binong Xu, respondent, v Mark Sullivan, appellant. (Proceeding No. 3)

2010–09212 2010–09214 (Docket Nos. V–1013–06, V–1013–06 /08A, V–1013–06 /10B, V–1014–06, O–1012–06)

Decided: January 17, 2012

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. SHERI S. ROMAN SANDRA L. SGROI JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, N.Y., for appellant. Amanda Norejko, New York, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter of counsel; Tammy E. Linn on the brief), attorney for the child.

Argued—December 20, 2011

DECISION & ORDER

In related custody and visitation proceedings and a related family offense proceeding, the father appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Henry, J.), dated September 20, 2010, as, after a hearing, awarded the mother sole custody of the subject child, and limited his contact with the child to supervised visitation, and (2) from a resettled order of the same court, also dated September 20, 2010, which, after a hearing, awarded the mother sole custody of the subject child, and limited his contact with the child to supervised visitation.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the provisions of the order which are challenged on appeal were superseded by the resettled order; and it is further,

ORDERED that the resettled order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father withdrew his petition for custody during the course of the hearing. Therefore, his contentions regarding an award of joint custody are not properly before this Court.

Although “[s]upervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Matter of Bullinger v. Costa, 63 AD3d 735, 735–736; see Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022, 1024; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839), a determination as to whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to the court's sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound basis in the record (see Matter of Lorraine D. v. Widmack C., 79 AD3d 745, 745–746; Matter of Smith v. Roberts, 67 AD3d 688, 689; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839). Here, the determination that visitation should be supervised was made after a hearing, and is supported by the evidence in the record, including expert opinion adduced after a forensic examination.

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

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!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law