Burgess v. Burgess

Decision Date10 October 2012
Citation951 N.Y.S.2d 893,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06805,99 A.D.3d 797
PartiesIn the Matter of Clifford BURGESS, appellant, v. Doris BURGESS, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

99 A.D.3d 797
951 N.Y.S.2d 893
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06805

In the Matter of Clifford BURGESS, appellant,
v.
Doris BURGESS, respondent.

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

Oct. 10, 2012.


Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant.

Rachel A. Camillery, Babylon, N.Y., attorney for the children.


[99 A.D.3d 797]In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Orlando, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated July 26, 2011, which, without a hearing, denied the petition.

[951 N.Y.S.2d 894]

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the children and a new determination of the father's petition for visitation.

In this case, the father petitioned for visitation with the subject children, born on December 17, 2002, and March 6, 2006. The father alleged that the children resided with the mother in Bay Shore. The father was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility.

At an appearance in the Family Court on July 25, 2011, the mother's attorney moved to dismiss the petition. The Family Court, in effect, denied the mother's motion and held what it referred to as a hearing on the merits, at which the attorneys for the father, the mother, and the children advanced their clients' respective positions. No witnesses were called. On the next day, the Family Court rendered its decision on the record, denying the petition, and issued the order appealed from, denying the father's petition. The father appeals. We reverse the order and remit the matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the children and a new determination of the father's petition for visitation.

“[T]he determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the hearing court based upon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Cardona v. Vantassel, 96 A.D.3d 1052, 1052, 946 N.Y.S.2d 876 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Smith v. Smith, 92 A.D.3d 791, 792, 938 N.Y.S.2d 601;[99 A.D.3d 798]Matter of McLean v. Simpson, 82 A.D.3d 1101, 1101, 918 N.Y.S.2d 896;Matter of Franklin v. Richey, 57 A.D.3d 663, 664, 869 N.Y.S.2d 187).

“ ‘Absent exceptional circumstances,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Fernandez v. Harrell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 19, 2021
    ...circumstances, some form of [parental access] with the noncustodial parent is always appropriate" ( Matter of Burgess v. Burgess, 99 A.D.3d 797, 798, 951 N.Y.S.2d 893 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Reilly v. Hager–Reilly, 166 A.D.3d at 826–827, 88 N.Y.S.3d 83 ). "However,......
  • Bell v. Mays
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 29, 2015
    ...been forfeited” (Matter of Granger v. Misercola, 21 N.Y.3d at 91, 967 N.Y.S.2d 872, 990 N.E.2d 110 ; see Matter of Burgess v. Burgess, 99 A.D.3d 797, 798, 951 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; Matter of Cardona v. Vantassel, 96 A.D.3d 1052, 1052–1053, 946 N.Y.S.2d 876 ; Matter of Smith v. Smith, 92 A.D.3d 791......
  • Jackson v. Wylie-Tunstall
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 16, 2016
    ...658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 ; Matter of Land–Wheatley v. Land–Wheatley, 108 A.D.3d 674, 969 N.Y.S.2d 518 ; Matter of Burgess v. Burgess, 99 A.D.3d 797, 797, 951 N.Y.S.2d 893 ; Matter of Gutkaiss v. Leahy, 262 A.D.2d 681, 682, 690 N.Y.S.2d 790 ; cf. Matter of Coull v. Rottman, 131 A.D.3d 964, 964, ......
  • Goncalves v. Goncalves
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 17, 2013
    ...after a full evidentiary hearing [963 N.Y.S.2d 687]to determine the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Burgess v. Burgess, 99 A.D.3d 797, 798, 951 N.Y.S.2d 893), but a hearing may not be necessary when a court already has adequate relevant information permitting it to make that det......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT