Williams v. Williams

• Decision Date: 12 October 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-03306, 2021-03308,Docket Nos. V-00002-15/19H, O-00918-18/18A
• Citation: 174 N.Y.S.3d 886 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of Ansil Lincoln WILLIAMS, appellant, v. Tanique WILLIAMS, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Ansil Williams, appellant, v. Tanique Williams, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

174 N.Y.S.3d 886 (Mem)

In the Matter of Ansil Lincoln WILLIAMS, appellant,

v.Tanique WILLIAMS, respondent.

(Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Ansil Williams, appellant,

v.Tanique Williams, respondent.

(Proceeding No. 2)

2021-03306, 2021-03308

Docket Nos. V-00002-15/19H, O-00918-18/18A

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

Submitted—September 19, 2022

October 12, 2022

Heath J. Goldstein, Jamaica, NY, for appellant.

Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, NY, for respondent.

Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, NY (Janet Neustaetter and Laura Solecki of counsel), attorney for the child.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, LARA J. GENOVESI, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 and a related proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Esther M. Morgenstern, J.), both dated October 29, 2020. The first order, without a hearing, denied the father's petition in the proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 and dismissed that proceeding. The second order, insofar as appealed from, without a hearing, denied that branch of the father's petition in the proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 which was for parental access with the subject child and dismissed that portion of the proceeding.

ORDERED that the first order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the second order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The father of the subject child commenced a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 in which he sought a temporary order of parental access. The father also commenced a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, for parental access with the child. By order dated October 29, 2020, the Supreme Court denied the petition in the proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 and dismissed that proceeding. In a second order dated October 29, 2020, the court, among other things, denied that branch of the petition in the proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 which was for parental access and dismissed that portion of that proceeding. The father appeals.

A court " ‘has broad discretion in fashioning a remedy in matters of custody and [parental access], with the paramount concern being the best interests of the child’ " ( Cervera v. Bressler, 109 A.D.3d 780, 781, 971 N.Y.S.2d 59, quoting Matter of Schick v. Schick, 72 A.D.3d 1100, 1101, 900 N.Y.S.2d 337 ; see Hepheastou v. Spaliaras, 201 A.D.3d 793, 794, 162 N.Y.S.3d 75 ). " ‘Absent extraordinary circumstances, where [parental access] would be detrimental to the child's well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable [parental access] privileges’ " ( Matter of Rodriguez v. Silva, 121 A.D.3d 794, 795, 993 N.Y.S.2d 733, quoting Pollack v. Pollack, 56 A.D.3d 637, 639, 868 N.Y.S.2d 243 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the Supreme Court's denial of parental access was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the...