Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Zwillman v. Kull

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 13, 2011

90 A.D.3d 774; 934 N.Y.2d 333

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

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)
Matter of Munroe v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Pena v. Tiburcio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Rodriguez-Donaghy v. Donaghy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Rodriguez-Donaghy v. Donaghy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Anthony M.P. v. Ta-Mirra J.H. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Rodriguez v. Silva (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Rivera v. Fowler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Rivera v. Fowler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Ross v. Morrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Ross v. Morrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Matter of Jackson v. Hall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Matter of Jahari BB. v. Zada CC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Alexis A.T. v. Gary C.T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Brown v. Simon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Matter of Cabano v. Petrella (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Gonzalez v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Greenberg v. Greenberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Stones v. Vandenberge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Diaz v. Garcia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Matter of Munoz v. Edmonds-Munoz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Jacob P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
In re Jacob P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Orellana v. Orellana (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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

*775When adjudicating visitation rights, the court’s first concern is the welfare and interests of the child. Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and the child (see Matter of Aguirre v Romano, 73 AD3d 912 [2010]; Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637 [2008]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837 [2008]; McGrath v D’Angio-McGrath, 42 AD3d 440 [2007]; Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775 [1984]). The best interests of the child lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents. In order for the noncustodial parent to develop a meaningful, nurturing relationship with the child, visitation must be frequent and regular. Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as where visitation would be detrimental to the child’s well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges (see Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637 [2008]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837 [2008]; Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775 [1984]).

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the father’s petition to modify the visitation schedule set forth in the parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce entered June 7, 2007. Here, the father established that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification was necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child (see Matter of Pavone v Bronson, 88 AD3d 724 [2011]; Matter of Gant v Chambliss, 86 AD3d 612 [2011]; Matter of Francois v Grimm, 84 AD3d 1082 [2011]; Matter of Garcia v Fountain, 82 AD3d 979 [2011]). The Family Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and there is no basis to disturb it (see Matter of Manzella v Milano, 82 AD3d 1242 [2011]; Matter of Waldron v Dussek, 48 AD3d 471 [2008]; Matter of Steinhauser v Haas, 40 AD3d 863 [2007]). Mastro, A.EJ, Hall, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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