Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

Smith v. Molody-Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 28, 2003

307 A.D.2d 364; 762 N.Y.S.2d 818

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

Mazzola v. Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Assini v. Assini (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Whitehead v. Whitehead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Chaim N. Administration for Children's Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Chaim N. Administration for Children's Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Grunwald v. Grunwald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Grunwald v. Grunwald (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Patterson v. Patterson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Figueroa v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Riemma v. Cascone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Mennuti v. Berry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Rosenberg v. Rosenberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Mattie M. v. Administration for Children's Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Cervera v. Bressler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Perez v. Sepulveda (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Potente v. Wasilewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Horan v. Framolaro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Grassi v. Grassi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Walberg v. Rudden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Matter of J.G. v. B.G. (Nassau Family Court 2005)
Williams v. O'Toole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Hom v. Zullo (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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.H.O.), entered June 20, 2002, as, in effect, modified a prior order of the same court (Blass, J.), dated March 18, 2002, so as to grant the mother unsupervised visitation with the parties’ child.

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

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion by modifying its prior order so as to grant the mother unsupervised visitation with the parties’ child. Contrary to the father’s contention, a hearing is not necessary where, as here, the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the child’s best *365interest (see Matter of Porter v Burgey, 266 AD2d 552, 553 [1999]; Webster v Webster, 163 AD2d 178, 179 [1990]). In a situation such as this, where the extensive evidence before the court showed that the mother and daughter had a loving, appropriate relationship, and where there were no extraordinary circumstances, it was in the child’s best interest to enjoy unrestricted visitation with her mother (see Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175 [1981]; Matter of Schack v Schack, 98 AD2d 802 [1983]; Daghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191, 193 [1981]). Moreover, under the circumstances, requiring that visitation be supervised would have violated the mother’s right to “reasonable access and visitation” (Matter of Schack v Schack, supra at 802). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.