Matter of Alcantara v. Garcia, 2020 NY Slip Op 1340 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Alcantara v. Garcia, 2020 NY Slip Op 1340 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Jillian PP. v. Christopher C. (nyappdiv, 2026-05-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Jillian PP. v. Christopher C. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
The father's substantiated abuse of the half brother was thus highly probative of his parental fitness and the risk posed to the subject child during visitation, regardless of whether direct abuse of the subject child was established ( see generally Matter of Alcantara v Garcia , 180 AD3d 1038, 1039 [2d Dept 2020]; Matter of Velasquez v Kattau , 167 AD3d 912, 912-913 [2d Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 919 [2019]; Matter of Davis v Davis , 265 AD2d 552, 552-553 [2d Dept 1999]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Randall v. Diaz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
While "[a] hearing is not necessary where the undisputed facts before the court are sufficient, in and of themselves, to support a modification of custody" ( Loggia v Verardo , 167 AD3d 612 , 613; see Matter of Alcantara v Garcia , 180 AD3d 1038, 1039 ; Matter of Vitucci v Radparvar , 173 AD3d 1191 , 1192), "a court opting to forgo a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were—or were not—material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision" ( S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d at 564 ; see Indictor v Indictor , 192 AD3d 1089, 1091 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matter of Alcantara
v.
Garcia
2017-08727.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 26, 2020.
2020 NY Slip Op 1340
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Matter of Alcantara v Garcia (2020 NY Slip Op 01340)
Matter of Alcantara v Garcia
2020 NY Slip Op 01340
Decided on February 26, 2020
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 26, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2017-08727
(Docket Nos. V-2548-16, V-2549-16)

[*1]In the Matter of Cirilo Alcantara, appellant,

v

Jesucita Garcia, respondent.




Zvi Ostrin, New York, NY, for appellant.

Wendy A. Keegan, Staten Island, NY, attorney for the children (no brief filed).



DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Peter F. DeLizzo, J.), dated August 9, 2017. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the father's petition for parental access with two of the parties' children.

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

The father, who is incarcerated, filed a petition seeking parental access with two of the parties' children. In an order dated August 9, 2017, the Family Court dismissed the petition without conducting a hearing. The father appeals.

Parental access "determinations should generally be made after a full evidentiary hearing to ascertain the bests interests of the child[ren]" (Matter of Izquierdo v Santiago, 151 AD3d 967, 968; see S.L. v J.R., 27 NY3d 558, 563). However, this general right is not absolute (see S.L. v J.R., 27 NY3d at 564), and a hearing is not necessary where undisputed facts are before the court (see Matter of Daclin-Goyatton v Cousins, 172 AD3d 1369; Loggia v Verardo, 167 AD3d 612, 613).

Here, the Family Court's determination to dismiss the father's petition was supported by undisputed evidence that it was not in the best interests of the children to grant the father parental access. The court dismissed the father's petition for parental access based on the findings in a prior decision of the Family Court (Karen Wolff, J.) dated October 18, 2013, made after a fact-finding hearing, pursuant to which it was determined that the children were derivatively abused by the father as a result of his sexual abuse of their sister. The Family Court in the instant proceeding also considered the father's criminal conviction for his sexual abuse of that child.

Accordingly, we agree with the Family Court's determination to dismiss the father's petition without a hearing (see Loggia v Verardo, 167 AD3d 612).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, CHRISTOPHER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court