Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(visitation reduction for Jeffrey Dickinson stands)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of Dickinson v. Whelan

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 2, 2026
Docket
657 CA 25-00274
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05654
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 3, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court, Genesee County: decreased Jeffrey B. Dickinson's visitation with the child.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (visitation reduction for Jeffrey Dickinson stands)

TL;DR

  1. 1A court reduced a man's visitation rights with his child.
  2. 2The man appealed, wanting the original visitation restored.
  3. 3The appeal court agreed with the , keeping the reduced visitation.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Should the man's reduced visitation with his child be upheld?

    Holding · The court upheld the reduced visitation, agreeing with the 's reasoning.

Why it matters

This decision impacts parents seeking to modify visitation agreements after a court's decision.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Man fights to keep more time with his child

  1. 1A man sought to maintain his visitation with his child.
  2. 2A court reduced the amount of time he could spend with the child.
  3. 3He now wants the higher court to give him back his original visitation rights.

Should the decision to reduce the man's visitation rights with his child stay in place?

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of Dickinson

  • Appellee

    Whelan

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of Dickinson v Whelan 2026 NY Slip Op 05654 October 2, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY B. DICKINSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v KRISTEN B. WHELAN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. -------------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF KRISTEN B. WHELAN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, JEFFREY B. DICKINSON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on October 2, 2026 657 CA 25-00274 Present: Whalen, P.J., Bannister, Nowak, Hannah, And Skinner, JJ. DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. LAW OFFICE OF VERONICA REED, SCHENECTADY (VERONICA REED OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. DEBORAH K. JESSEY, CLARENCE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini, A.J.), dated December 2, 2024, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, decreased petitioner-respondent Jeffrey B. Dickinson's visitation with the subject child. [*1] It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. Entered: October 2, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener