Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Binong Xu v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 17, 2012

91 A.D.3d 771; 936 N.Y.2d 569

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Fernandez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Agulnick v. Agulnick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Sarfati v. DeJesus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Watson v. Maragh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Tecza v. Alija (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
GREEN, NORMAN E. v. BONTZOLAKES, JACQUELINE (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Grant v. Terry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Grant v. Terry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Gooler v. Gooler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Gooler v. Gooler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Green v. Bontzolakes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Green v. Bontzolakes (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

The father withdrew his petition for custody during the course of the hearing. Therefore, his contentions regarding an award of joint custody are not properly before this Court.

Although “[supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Matter of Bullinger v Costa, 63 AD3d 735, 735-736 [2009]; see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022, 1024 [2007]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008]), a determination as to whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to the court’s sound discretion, and its findings *772will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound basis in the record (see Matter of Lorraine D. v Widmack C., 79 AD3d 745, 745-746 [2010]; Matter of Smith v Roberts, 67 AD3d 688, 689 [2009]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d at 839). Here, the determination that visitation should be supervised was made after a hearing, and is supported by the evidence in the record, including expert opinion adduced after a forensic examination.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Rivera, J.E, Roman, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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