G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2013–2015 ·
…when adjudicating visitation rights, the court's first concern is the welfare and interests of the child
at p. 775
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Jahari BB. v. Zada CC.
There is no dispute that Order No. 2 was lawful and that the father's right [*5]to parent the child was hampered by her being in Florida ( see S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d 558 , 562 [2016]; Matter of Zwillman v Kull , 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2d Dept 2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greenberg v. Greenberg
Furthermore, the record establishes that there had been a change in circumstances such that a modification of the existing visitation arrangement was necessary in order to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child (see Matter of Rodriguez-Donaghy v Donaghy, 138 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2016]; Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez-Donaghy v. Donaghy
The best interests of the child lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents (see Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez-Donaghy v. Donaghy
The best interests of the child lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents (see Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Stones v. Vandenberge
“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” (Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; see Matter of Rodriguez v Silva, 121 AD3d 794, 795 [2014]; Matter of Rivera v Fowler, 112 AD3d 835, 836 [2013]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Anthony M.P. v. Ta-Mirra J.H.
“When adjudicating visitation rights, the court’s first concern is the welfare and interests of the child” (Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Munoz v. Edmonds-Munoz
As a general rule, absent extraordinary circumstances, a noncustodial parent is entitled to reasonable visitation privileges (see Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637 , 638-639 [2008]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Rodriguez v. Silva
Absent extraordinary circumstances, where visitation would be detrimental to the child’s well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges’ ” (Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637 , 638 [2008], quoting Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775, 775-776 [1984]; see Matter of Ross v Morrison, 98 AD3d 515, 517 [2012]; Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]). *796 Here, the Family Court’s determination not to impose geographical limitations on the father’s visitation with the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Zwillman v Kull,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Fowler
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Extraordinary circumstances are not a prerequisite to obtaining a modification; rather, the ‘standard ultimately to be applied remains the best interests of the child when all of the applicable factors are considered’ ” (Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d at 381 , quoting Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]; see Matter of Krom v Comerford, 57 NY2d 704, 705 [1982]; Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Matter of Tabares v Tabares, 64 AD3d 661, 662 [2009] ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Fowler
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Extraordinary circumstances are not a prerequisite to obtaining a modification; rather, the ‘standard ultimately to be applied remains the best interests of the child when all of the applicable factors are considered’ ” (Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d at 381 , quoting Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]; see Matter of Krom v Comerford, 57 NY2d 704, 705 [1982]; Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Matter of Tabares v Tabares, 64 AD3d 661, 662 [2009] ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Orellana v. Orellana
“When adjudicating visitation rights, the court’s first concern is the welfare and interests of the child” (Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Orellana v. Orellana
“When adjudicating visitation rights, the court’s first concern is the welfare and interests of the child” (Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Grunwald v. Grunwald
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
“Extraordinary circumstances are not a prerequisite to obtaining a modification; rather, the ‘standard ultimately to be applied remains the best interests of the child when all of the applicable factors are considered’ ” (Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381 [2004], quoting Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]; see Matter of Krom v Comerford, 57 NY2d 704, 705 [1982]; Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Matter of Tobares v Tobares, 64 AD3d 661 , 662 [2009]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381 [2004]).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Grunwald v. Grunwald
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
“Extraordinary circumstances are not a prerequisite to obtaining a modification; rather, the ‘standard ultimately to be applied remains the best interests of the child when all of the applicable factors are considered’ ” (Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381 [2004], quoting Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]; see Matter of Krom v Comerford, 57 NY2d 704, 705 [1982]; Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Matter of Tobares v Tobares, 64 AD3d 661 , 662 [2009]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381 [2004]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Jacob P.
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 Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD 3d 637 [2008]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837 [2008]; Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775 [1984]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Jacob P.
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 Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD 3d 637 [2008]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837 [2008]; Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775 [1984]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Jackson v. Hall
"Parental access is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child" ( Matter of Munroe v Smith , 189 AD3d 1595, 1598 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Zwillman v Kull , 90 AD3d 774, 775 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Brown v. Simon
Inasmuch as "[t]he best interests of the child generally lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents" ( Matter of Ross v Morrison , 98 AD3d 515, 517 ; see Matter of Zwillman v Kull , 90 AD3d 774, 775 ; Matter of Jules v Corriette , 76 AD3d 1016 , 1017), "[i]t is generally in the best interest of the child for a rapport to be established with the noncustodial parent" ( Matter of Schack v Schack , 98 AD2d 802, 802 ; see Zafran v Zafran , 28 AD3d 753, 755 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Diaz v. Garcia
“The best interests of the child generally lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents” (Matter of Ross v Morrison, 98 AD3d 515, 517 [2012]; see Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d 1016 , 1017 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ross v. Morrison
Absent extraordinary circumstances, where visitation would be detrimental to the child’s well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges’ ” (Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637 , 638 [2008], quoting Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775, 775-776 [1984]; see Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ross v. Morrison
Absent extraordinary circumstances, where visitation would be detrimental to the child’s well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges’ ” (Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637 , 638 [2008], quoting Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775, 775-776 [1984]; see Matter of Zwillman v Kull, 90 AD3d 774, 775 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Michael Zwillman
v.
Donna Kull
v.
Donna Kull
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 13, 2011.
Cited by 26 opinions | Published
[*775] When 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.