Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

In re Samia Z. ACS Division of Group Homes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 26, 2002

297 A.D.2d 385; 746 N.Y.2d 598

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Brianna B. (Jennifer I.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Sterling v. Silva (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Singh v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Singh v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Kaur v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Kaur v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Grossman v. Grossman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re Cheyenne S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion when it indefinitely *386suspended her supervised visitation with the subject children. An indefinite suspension of supervised visitation was in the best interests of the subject children (see Matter of Melinda A. v Greene County Dept. of Social Servs., 278 AD2d 754; Matter of Licitra v Licitra, 255 AD2d 384, 385). The record supports the finding that the appellant has chronically used her visitation time to behave in a manner which has caused the children, who have special needs, emotional distress. Even in the presence of a supervisor, the appellant persisted in making comments designed to denigrate the children, as well as the father of one child (see Matter of Licitra v Licitra, supra). The record also supports the finding that continued supervised visitation would be detrimental to the children’s therapy and development (see Matter of Melinda A. v Greene County Dept. of Social Servs., supra).

The appellant’s remaining contentions, insofar as reviewed, are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.