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: Edwin MORALES, appellant, v. Evelyn BRUNO, respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated April 23, 2005, which, after a fact-finding hearing, denied his petition to modify an order of the same court (Turbow, J.), dated May 17, 2001, inter alia, permitting contact with his children only by mail.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“[T]he determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the hearing court based upon the best interests of the child (see Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89 [447 N.Y.S.2d 893, 432 N.E.2d 765]; see also Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer, 159 A.D.2d 113, 116 [558 N.Y.S.2d 596] ), and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Kachelhofer v. Wasiak, 10 A.D.3d 366, 366, 780 N.Y.S.2d 290). While it is true that a parent's incarceration does not, by itself, render visitation inappropriate (see Matter of Selca v. Selca, 267 A.D.2d 314, 699 N.Y.S.2d 891; Matter of Teixeria v. Teixeria, 205 A.D.2d 545, 546, 613 N.Y.S.2d 49; Matter of Simpson v. Finnigan, 202 A.D.2d 592, 593, 609 N.Y.S.2d 265), visitation will be denied where there is substantial evidence that such visitation would be detrimental to the child (Matter of Trombley v. Trombley, 301 A.D.2d 890, 891, 754 N.Y.S.2d 100). Here, although the Family Court incorrectly recited the law on the burden of proof, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to establish that, under the circumstances, visitation would not be in the children's best interests at this time (see Matter of Trombley v. Trombley, supra at 891-892, 754 N.Y.S.2d 100; Matter of Russo v. Russo, 282 A.D.2d 610, 723 N.Y.S.2d 405; Matter of Teixeria v. Teixeria, supra; Matter of Mohammed v. Cortland County Dept. of Social Servs., 186 A.D.2d 908, 909, 589 N.Y.S.2d 112).
The appellant's contentions regarding hearsay are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, the record supports the Family Court's determination even without the offending statements.
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.
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: May 30, 2006
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)