| Matter of Walker v Diaz |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04017 [95 AD3d 1225] |
| May 23, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of William Walker, Jr., Appellant, v SharisseN. Diaz, Respondent. |
—[*1] Joseph R. Faraguna, Sag Harbor, N.Y., for respondent.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Morgenstern, J.), dated June 7, 2010,which, sua sponte, suspended his visitation with the subject child.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matteris remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part), for further proceedings on the issueof visitation consistent with the child's best interest.
" 'A noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation. Denial of that right is so drasticthat it must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfareof the child' " (Matter ofPettiford-Brown v Brown, 42 AD3d 541, 542 [2007], quoting Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10AD3d 366, 366 [2004]). When adjudicating visitation issues, a court must determine the bestinterests of the child (see Matter of Indigv Indig, 90 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2011]; Matter of Mohabir v Singh, 78 AD3d 1056 [2010]; Matter of Mera v Rodriguez, 73 AD3d1069, 1069-1070 [2010]; Matter ofThompson v Yu-Thompson, 41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]).
Here, the Supreme Court failed to determine the best interests of the child before suspendingthe father's visitation with the child. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the SupremeCourt, Kings County (IDV Part), for further proceedings on the issue of visitation consistent withthe child's best interests. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.