From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Weil v. Clavering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 1995
215 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

May 30, 1995

Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.).


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

The petitioner and the respondent are the parents of Alex Peter Clavering, who was born in June 1991, after his parents had ended their nonmarital relationship. A two-day hearing was held in the Family Court after efforts to negotiate a settlement regarding visitation were unsuccessful. Among the contested issues were the length of the weekend visits, since the petitioner's demands would have prevented the respondent from taking Alex, not yet two years old at the time of the hearing, to mass on Sundays. Although the petitioner is Jewish, he acquiesced in the respondent's decision to raise Alex in her faith, Roman Catholicism.

The petitioner's contention that the court's order infringes upon his own constitutional rights is without merit, since prohibiting him from involving Alex in any religious activity without the respondent's consent does not interfere with his own religious practices (see, Barran v Nayyar, 174 A.D.2d 1012; Lebovich v Wilson, 155 A.D.2d 291; Matter of Bentley v Bentley, 86 A.D.2d 926; cf., Kadin v Kadin, 131 A.D.2d 437).

Although the visitation schedule established by the court is not as extensive as the petitioner had requested, there is nothing in the record that suggests any reason for this Court to disturb the Family Court's determination (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167). Certainly, the petitioner, as the noncustodial parent, has a right to reasonable visitation (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170; Twersky v Twersky, 103 A.D.2d 775). The schedule fashioned by the court is consistent with the recommendations of the Law Guardian (cf., Koppenhoefer v Koppenhoefer, 159 A.D.2d 113). It also ensures that the respondent will be able to take Alex to Sunday mass.

Moreover, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the respondent (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Weil v. Clavering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 30, 1995
215 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Weil v. Clavering

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PETER A. WEIL, Appellant, v. MARY CLAVERING, Respondent

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

Date published: May 30, 1995

Citations

215 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
627 N.Y.S.2d 92

Citing Cases

Matter of Orner v. Orner

We decline to disturb the Family Court's determination. The noncustodial parent has a right to regular and…

Larkin v. White

Here, based on the totality of the circumstances ( see Eschbachv Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 174), the Family…