From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Razo v. Leyva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 2004
3 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-08480.

Decided January 26, 2004.

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated July 26, 2002, which dismissed, without a hearing, his petition for visitation with the parties' daughter.

Francine Shraga, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Robert E. Nicholson, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.

Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Sheila A. O'Shea and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.

Before: THOMAS A. ADAMS and SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The father did not seek visitation with his daughter until she was nearly 10 years old and, concededly, had no relationship with her. Further, he did not provide any financial support for her. The Law Guardian indicated that the daughter did not wish to have a relationship with her father, whom she had never met. Under the circumstances, the Family Court properly dismissed the father's petition without a hearing as it possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision consistent with the child's best interests ( see Matter of Mobley v. Ishmael, 285 A.D.2d 648; Matter of Glenn T. v. Donna U., 226 A.D.2d 803).

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Razo v. Leyva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 2004
3 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Razo v. Leyva

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF BALAAM OBET RAZO, appellant, v. MARIA LEYVA, respondent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 26, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 168

Citing Cases

Edward WW. v. Diana XX.

J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 327; see Matter of Kristen D. v Stephen D., 280 AD2d 717, 719). The party raising…

Young v. Rios

Its purpose is to prevent someone from enforcing rights that would work injustice on the person against whom…