Weil v. Clavering

• Decision Date: 30 May 1995
• Parties: In the Matter of Peter Alex WEIL, Appellant, v. Mary CLAVERING, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 92

627 N.Y.S.2d 92

215 A.D.2d 766

In the Matter of Peter Alex WEIL, Appellant, v. Mary CLAVERING, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

May 30, 1995.

Douglas R. Rothkopf, Garden City, for appellant.

Samuelson, Rieger & Yovino, Garden City (Anthony Yovino, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILLER, SANTUCCI and ALTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered July 16, 1993, as (1) directed him not to involve the child in any religious activity without the consent of the respondent mother, (2) failed to grant him visitation to the extent he had requested, including Friday nights and Jewish holy days, and (3) directed him to pay the respondent mother's counsel fees in the amount of $7,500.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner and the respondent are the parents of Alex Peter Clavering, who was born in June 1991, after his parents had ended their nonmarital relationship. A two-day hearing was held in the Family Court after efforts to negotiate a settlement regarding visitation were unsuccessful. Among the contested issues was the length of the weekend visits, since the petitioner's demands would have prevented the respondent from taking Alex, not yet two years old at the time of the hearing, to mass on Sundays. Although the petitioner is Jewish, he acquiesced in the respondent's decision to raise Alex in her faith, Roman Catholicism.

The petitioner's contention that the court's order infringes upon his own constitutional rights is without merit, since prohibiting him from involving Alex in any religious activity without the respondent's consent does not interfere with his own religious practices (see, Barran v. Nayyar, 174 A.D.2d 1012, 572 N.Y.S.2d 821; Lebovich v. Wilson, 155 A.D.2d 291, 547 N.Y.S.2d 54; Matter of Bentley v. Bentley, 86 A.D.2d 926, 448 N.Y.S.2d 559; cf., Kadin v. Kadin, 131 A.D.2d 437, 515 N.Y.S.2d 868).

Although the visitation schedule established by the court is not as extensive as the petitioner had requested, there is nothing in the record that suggests any reason for this court to disturb the Family Court's determination (see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). Certainly, the petitioner, as the...