In the Matter of Rought v. Palidar
| Decision Date | 30 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | CAF 03-00810. |
| Citation | 2004 NY Slip Op 03300,6 A.D.3d 1112,775 N.Y.S.2d 678 |
| Parties | In the Matter of GEORGE ROUGHT, Respondent, v. CAROL PALIDAR, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
"[I]t is well settled that the standard to be applied in determining issues of visitation is the best interest[s] of the child" (Matter of Mix v Gray, 265 AD2d 692, 693 [1999]). The visitation schedule fashioned by Family Court "permits the desirable end of more meaningful interaction between the child and his father" (Matter of Effner v Scott, 194 AD2d 890, 891 [1993]) and recognizes that "the best interests of the child lie in being nurtured by both parents" (Edgerly v Moore, 232 AD2d 214, 215 [1996]). We discern no basis for disturbing the court's broad discretion in fashioning a visitation schedule (see Effner, 194 AD2d at 891-892). We reject the contention of respondent and the Law Guardian that the court improperly altered its original decision prior to an order having been submitted or entered on that decision. "`Until then, the court had inherent power, sua sponte or at the behest of one of the parties, to reconsider ... its earlier decision'" (Saccone v Elm Hill Plaza, 5 AD3d 1028 [2004], quoting Levinger v General Motors Corp., 122 AD2d 419, 420 [1986]; see Scritchfield v Perry, 245 AD2d 1054 [1997]). We conclude that the court properly exercised that power in altering its original decision and fixing a more definite visitation schedule.
Present — Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheridan v. Sheridan
...activities. We therefore see no basis to disturb the visitation schedule fashioned by the court (see Matter of Rought v. Palidar, 6 A.D.3d 1112, 1112, 775 N.Y.S.2d 678 ).Lastly, with respect to appeal No. 2, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions inasmuch as ......
-
A Custody/visitation Proceeding Under Article 6 of The Family Court Act v. C. M
...Dept. 2009)(Citations omitted). Most commonly, a child's best interest lay in being nurtured by both parents. Rought v. Palidar, 6 AD3d 1112, 775 N.Y.S.2d 678 (4th Dept. 2004). Parental access, commonly referred to as visitation, is an important right of the non-custodial parent and of the ......
-
Vandusen v. Riggs
...weeks to two weeks ( see generally Matter of Wojcik v. Newton [Appeal No. 2], 11 A.D.3d 1011, 782 N.Y.S.2d 236; Matter of Rought v. Palidar, 6 A.D.3d 1112, 775 N.Y.S.2d 678). Contrary to the further contention of the father in each appeal, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying h......
-
Jacobson v. Wilkinson, 325 CAF 14-01382
...128 A.D.3d 13357 N.Y.S.3d 7602015 N.Y. Slip Op. 03635In the Matter of Julie Wray JACOBSON, PetitionerAppellantv.Keith H. WILKINSON, RespondentRespondent.325 CAF ... , which the court properly determined was in the child's best interests (see Matter of Rought 7 N.Y.S.3d 762v. Palidar, 6 A.D.3d 1112, 1112, 775 N.Y.S.2d 678 ). Nevertheless, we agree with the ... ...