Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

Casolari v. Zambuto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 21, 2003

1 A.D.2d 1031; 767 N.Y.S.2d 369; 1 A.D.3d 1031; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12382

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

J.V. v. M.S. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Matter of Cecelia BB. v. Frank CC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Matter of Heather SS. v. Ronald SS. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Mondschein v. Mondschein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
GUY, LISA MARIE v. GUY, ERIC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Guy v. Guy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Guy v. Guy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
OTROSINKA, JEREMY D. v. HAGEMAN, CHRISTIAN (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Otrosinka v. Hageman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Otrosinka v. Hageman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
MERKLE, ALDA M. v. HENRY, CHARLES RICHARD (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Merkle v. Henry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Merkle v. Henry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
William-Torand v. Torand (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Anthony C. v. Kristine Z. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Kristine Z. v. Anthony C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Monroe County (Sciolino, J.), entered February 2, 2001, which, inter alia, directed that sole custody of the children shall continue with respondent and set forth periods of visitation for petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the 6th and 17th ordering paragraphs and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order denying his petitions, granting respondent mother’s petition in part and modifying the existing visitation schedule with respect to the parties’ children. We agree with petitioner that Family Court erred in ordering that “the children shall be encouraged, but not forced to visit with [him].” Under the circumstances, that direction “ ‘tends unnecessarily to defeat the right of visitation’ ” (Sturm v Lyding, 96 AD2d 731, 731-732 [1983], quoting Mahler v Mahler, 72 AD2d 739, 739 [1979]; see Pincus v Pincus, 138 AD2d 687, 688 [1988]; cf. Matter of Marotta v Fariello, 207 AD2d 450, 451-452 [1994]). We also agree with petitioner that the court erred in restricting him from filing new petitions without leave of the court. “Public policy generally mandates free access to the courts” (Matter of Leopold, 287 AD2d 718, 718 [2001]) and there is no proof that petitioner has abused the judicial process (cf Matter of Shreve v Shreve, 229 AD2d 1005, 1006 [1996]). We thus modify the order by vacating the 6th and 17th ordering paragraphs. Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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