Hover v. Shear
| Decision Date | 17 October 1996 |
| Citation | 648 N.Y.S.2d 718,232 A.D.2d 749 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Merle Dee HOVER, Appellant-Respondent, v. Debra SHEAR, Respondent-Appellant. (And Two Other Related Proceedings.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Norbert A. Higgins, Binghamton, for appellant-respondent.
Michael G. Dayian, Albany, for respondent-appellant.
Before CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, CREW, WHITE and PETERS, JJ.
Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Hester Jr., J.), entered September 20, 1994, which, inter alia, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, denied petitioner's motion to review respondent's Family Court files from a prior proceeding, (2) from an order of said court, entered November 15, 1994, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for joint custody of the parties' child, (3) from an order of said court, entered November 15, 1994, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, to find respondent in violation of a prior order of visitation, and (4) from an order of said court, entered May 19, 1995, which, inter alia, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, directed respondent to pay for part of the cost of established supervised visitation.
The parties are the parents of a daughter (hereinafter the child) who was born in 1992. At the time the instant proceedings were initiated, respondent had already been granted sole custody of the child. Petitioner appeals from Family Court orders dismissing his petition for joint custody of the child, continuing his supervised visitation with her and denying his application for an order granting him access to records of Family Court proceedings involving custody of respondent's children from a prior marriage. Respondent appeals from so much of a separate Family Court order as provides that petitioner's visitation be alternately supervised at the Family and Children's Society of Binghamton, with respondent paying one half of the cost thereof, and at an unspecified location by petitioner's current wife.
The parties' contentions lack merit, and we accordingly affirm. First, petitioner's speculation that, in connection with earlier Family Court proceedings, respondent had falsely accused her prior husband of child abuse and alcohol and drug abuse and that the records of those proceedings would "shed light on the reliability of the allegations in the instant proceeding" by no means mandated Family Court's exercise of its discretion to permit inspection of the records pursuant to Family Court Act § 166 (see, People v. Radtke, 155 Misc.2d 21, 30, 588 N.Y.S.2d 69). Nor are we persuaded that respondent waived her privilege with regard to those materials. It was petitioner, and not respondent, who made an issue of the prior proceedings.
Next, Family Court did not err in permitting hearsay testimony concerning the child's complaints to the effect that petitioner had hurt her in her vaginal area. The provision of Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) that "previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect shall be admissible in evidence" also applies in proceedings under Family Court Act article 6 based upon allegations of child abuse (see, Matter of Pratt v. Wood, 210 A.D.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Meriah GG. (In re Timothy GG.)
...is admitted at a hearing (see Matter of Gardner v. Gardner , 69 A.D.3d 1243, 1244, 893 N.Y.S.2d 698 [2010] ; Matter of Hover v. Shear, 232 A.D.2d 749, 750, 648 N.Y.S.2d 718 [1996], lv dismissed and denied 89 N.Y.2d 964, 655 N.Y.S.2d 883, 678 N.E.2d 495 [1997] ; see also Feldsberg v. Nitschk......
-
People v. Rostick
...782). The trial court's power to control the case is not reviewable absent a clear abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Hover v. Shear, 232 A.D.2d 749, 750, 648 N.Y.S.2d 718, lv. dismissed, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 964, 655 N.Y.S.2d 883, 678 N.E.2d 495; see also, Feldsberg v. Nitschke, 49 N.Y.2d......
-
Maurer v. Maurer
...be conducted (see generally, Feldsberg v. Nitschke, 49 N.Y.2d 636, 642-643, 427 N.Y.S.2d 751, 404 N.E.2d 1293; Matter of Hover v. Shear, 232 A.D.2d 749, 750, 648 N.Y.S.2d 718, lv. dismissed, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 964, 655 N.Y.S.2d 883, 678 N.E.2d 495). As to the requested disqualification of......
-
Orlando v. Rubersi Sales Inc.
...of the trial court (see, Feldsberg v. Nitschke, 49 N.Y.2d 636, 643, 427 N.Y.S.2d 751, 404 N.E.2d 1293; Matter of Hover v. Shear, 232 A.D.2d 749, 750, 648 N.Y.S.2d 718, lv. dismissed in part, lv. denied in part 89 N.Y.2d 964, 655 N.Y.S.2d 883, 678 N.E.2d 495), which may permit or prohibit a ......