Matter of Wispe v Leandry
2009 NY Slip Op 04916 [63 AD3d 853]
June 9, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 5, 2009


In the Matter of Hernan Wispe, Appellant,
v
Nilsa Leandryet al., Respondents.

[*1]Hennessey & DeNatale, Shirley, N.Y. (Susan A. DeNatale of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas W. McNally, Huntington Station, N.Y., for respondent Nilsa Leandry.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Diane B. Groom of counsel), attorney for thechildren.

In related visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated April 1, 2008, which,after a hearing, denied the petitions.

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

"[T]he determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the hearing court basedupon the best interests of the child . . . , and its determination will not be set asideunless it lacks a substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Morales v Bruno, 29 AD3d 1001 [2006] [internalquotation marks omitted]; Matter of Marcial v Sullivan, 296 AD2d 551 [2002]; seealso Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982]; see also Koppenhoefer vKoppenhoefer, 159 AD2d 113, 116 [1990]). "While it is true that a parent's incarcerationdoes not, by itself, render visitation inappropriate" (Matter of Morales v Bruno, 29 AD3dat 1001; see Matter of Rodriquez v Van Putten, 309 AD2d 807 [2003]; Matter ofMarcial v Sullivan, 296 AD2d 551 [2002]; Matter of Selca v Selca, 267 AD2d 314[1999]), visitation will be denied where there is substantial evidence that such visitation wouldbe detrimental to the child (see Matterof Morales v Bruno, 29 AD3d 1001 [2006]; Matter of Marcial v Sullivan, 296AD2d 551 [2002]). Here, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to establish that,under the circumstances, visitation with the father would not be in the children's best interests atthis time (see Matter of Morales vBruno, 29 AD3d 1001 [2006]; Matter of Rodriquez v Van Putten, 309 AD2d807 [2003]; Matter of Marcial v Sullivan, 296 AD2d 551 [2002]; Matter of Selca vSelca, 267 AD2d 314 [1999]). Fisher, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.