Lew v. Lew

• Citation: 961 N.Y.S.2d 579,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02076,104 A.D.3d 946
• Parties: In the Matter of Thierry E. LEW, appellant, v. Dorothy M. LEW, respondent.
• Decision Date: 27 March 2013
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

104 A.D.3d 946
961 N.Y.S.2d 579
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02076

In the Matter of Thierry E. LEW, appellant,
v.
Dorothy M. LEW, respondent.

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

March 27, 2013.

William A. Sheeckutz, Massapequa, N.Y., for appellant.

Lester & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Roy J. Lester of counsel), for respondent.

James E. Flood, Jr., Massapequa, N.Y., attorney for the child.

[961 N.Y.S.2d 580]

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

[104 A.D.3d 946]In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Pizzolo, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 12, 2012, which, upon directing that the father could not file further petitions until he satisfied certain conditions, without a hearing, dismissed the petition with prejudice.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, to be conducted forthwith.

“[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” ( Matter of Pettiford–Brown v. Brown, 42 A.D.3d 541, 542, 840 N.Y.S.2d 118 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Walker v. Diaz, 95 A.D.3d 1225, 943 N.Y.S.2d 913;Matter of Kachelhofer v. Wasiak, 10 A.D.3d 366, 780 N.Y.S.2d 290). Generally, visitation should be determined after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Feldman v. Feldman, 79 A.D.3d 871, 912 N.Y.S.2d 438;Matter of Franklin v. Richey, 57 A.D.3d 663, 665, 869 N.Y.S.2d 187;Matter of Pettiford–Brown v. Brown, 42 A.D.3d at 542, 840 N.Y.S.2d 118). “However, a hearing will not be necessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the child['s] best interest” ( Matter of Peluso v. Kasun, 78 A.D.3d 950, 951, 910 N.Y.S.2d 689 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Feldman v. Feldman, 79 A.D.3d at 871, 912 N.Y.S.2d 438;Matter of Hom v. Zullo, 6 A.D.3d 536, 775 N.Y.S.2d 66).

Here, the Family Court did not possess adequate relevant information to determine that supervised visitation with the father, as provided for in the parties' judgment of divorce,...