Anderson v. Harris
| Decision Date | 06 May 2010 |
| Citation | 73 A.D.3d 456,900 N.Y.S.2d 269 |
| Parties | In re Tonya ANDERSON, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Hal H. HARRIS, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
73 A.D.3d 456
In re Tonya ANDERSON, Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
Hal H. HARRIS, Respondent-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 6, 2010.
Hal H. Harris, appellant pro se.
Tonya Anderson, respondent pro se.
Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), Law Guardian.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, FREEDMAN, RICHTER, MANZANET-DANIELS, JJ.
Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Marian R. Shelton, J.), entered on or about December 31, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded petitioner mother sole physical and legal custody of the parties' child, dismissed respondent father's petitions based on violations of temporary orders of visitation, denied respondent's second motion to dismiss the custody petition, and issued a five-year order of protection forbidding respondent from exercising any corporal punishment against the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's direction that respondent take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) diagnostic test is no longer an issue since he has already taken the test ( see Matter of Hill v. Ward, 169 A.D.2d 620, 622, 565 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1991] ). There is no basis for striking the forensic psychologist's testimony. Although the forensic psychologist's report is not in the record on appeal, the child's attorney has submitted a copy of the report to this Court. Because respondent never contended that he lacked a sufficient opportunity to read the report, he cannot complain that his appeal has been impaired by the Family Court Clerk's failure to produce the report. Respondent improperly argues for the first time in his reply brief that the IAS court improperly admitted
With regard to deprivation of respondent's visitation rights, he had ample opportunity to present evidence of petitioner's violations during the custody trial, but failed to do so. Moreover, the record indicates that petitioner supported the child's regular and frequent visits with her father.
Denial of respondent's request for a subpoena was a proper exercise of discretion. There is no indication in the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohen v. Cohen
...has not established that the court abused its discretion in refusing to release the transcripts ( see Matter of Anderson v. Harris, 73 A.D.3d 456, 458, 900 N.Y.S.2d 269 [1st Dept.2010] ). In any event, the two in camera meetings were only one factor in the court's custody determination. Def......
-
Cohen v. Cohen
...has not established that the court abused its discretion in refusing to release the transcripts (see Matter of Anderson v. Harris, 73 A.D.3d 456, 458, 900 N.Y.S.2d 269 [1st Dept.2010] ). In any event, the two in camera meetings were only one factor in the court's custody determination.Defen......
-
Roseman v. Sierant
...998 N.Y.S.2d 538 ). The father lacks standing to complain about the assignment of counsel to petitioners (see Matter of Anderson v. Harris, 73 A.D.3d 456, 458, 900 N.Y.S.2d 269 ). Similarly, the father's contentions concerning the court's alleged errors in proceeding with the hearing in the......
-
Moiseeva v. Sichkin, 2014-04902, 2014-04904, (Docket Nos. O-5028-13, V-8867-13)
...at 692, 959 N.Y.S.2d 925 ; Matter of Nilda S. v. Dawn K., 302 A.D.2d 237, 237–238, 754 N.Y.S.2d 281 ; see also Matter of Anderson v. Harris, 73 A.D.3d 456, 457, 900 N.Y.S.2d 269 ; Matter of Iadicicco v. Iadicicco, 270 A.D.2d 721, 722–723, 704 N.Y.S.2d 377 ). Moreover, there is no basis to d......