Bradley v. Wright

• Decision Date: 12 April 1999
• Citation: 260 AD2d 477,686 N.Y.S.2d 327
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 3263 In the Matter of Ronald BRADLEY, Appellant, v. Narquita WRIGHT, Respondent.

Page 327

686 N.Y.S.2d 327

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 3263

In the Matter of Ronald BRADLEY, Appellant, v. Narquita WRIGHT, Respondent.

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

April 12, 1999.

Frank A. Buono, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Yisroel Schulman, New York, N.Y. (Ronald C. Maday and Kim Susser of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated November 10, 1997, which dismissed his petition for visitation.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

A noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation. Denial of that right is so drastic that it must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child (see, Matter of MacEwen v. MacEwen, 214 A.D.2d 572, 625 N.Y.S.2d 75; Matter of Vanderhoff v. Vanderhoff, 207 A.D.2d 494, 615 N.Y.S.2d 919). Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court erred in denying the father visitation without conducting an evidentiary hearing (see, Pica v. Pica, 96 A.D.2d 836, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1018; Heely v. Heely, 69 A.D.2d 810, 415 N.Y.S.2d 55; Kresnicka v. Kresnicka, 48 A.D.2d 929, 369 N.Y.S.2d 522).

MANGANO, P.J., BRACKEN, KRAUSMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.