Lozada v. Pinto
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- McMillian v. Rizzo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Matter of Elizabeth P. v. Joann C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Victor M.N. v. Norma G.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Sullivan v. Plotnick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Sassower-Berlin v. Berlin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Abbassi v. Michael (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Jeffers v. Hicks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Cruz v. Cruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Sassower-Berlin v. Berlin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Crowe v. McKay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Magwood v. Martinez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
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, in which the father alleged a violation of his visitation rights, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated January 11, 2002, as, in effect, vacated two orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Friedman, J.), both dated December 4, 1997, which, inter alia, awarded him visitation rights with two of his children, Carlos and Frank.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as relates to Carlos is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court can direct visitation only with minor children, who are defined under the Family Court Act as “person[s] who [have] not attained the age of eighteen years” (Family Ct Act § 119 [c]; § 651). Since Carlos is now over the age of 18, he is no longer subject to an order directing visitation (see Jabri v Jabri, 193 AD2d 782, 784 [1993]; Matter of Hughes v Wiegman, 150 AD2d 449 [1989]; Matter of Eric L. v Dorothy L., 130 AD2d 660, 661 [1987]). Thus, the appeal from so much of the order as relates to Carlos must be dismissed as academic.
The Family Court properly determined that under the circumstances, visitation with the father, who is incarcerated, would not be in Frank’s best interests (see Matter of Davis v Davis, 232 AD2d 773 [1996]; Matter of Simpson v Finnigan, 202 AD2d 592, 593 [1994]; Matter of Patsy M.C. v Lorna W.C., 165 AD2d 813 [1990]).
The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.