DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as relates to Carlos is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court can direct visitation only with minor children, who are defined under the Family Court Act as "person[s] who [have] not attained the age of eighteen years" (Family Ct Act §§ 119[c], 651). Since Carlos is now over the age of 18, he is no longer subject to an order directing visitation ( see Jabri v. Jabri, 193 A.D.2d 782, 784; Matter of Hughes v. Wiegman, 150 A.D.2d 449; Matter of Eric L. v. Dorothy L., 130 A.D.2d 660, 661). Thus, the appeal from so much of the order as relates to Carlos must be dismissed as academic.
The Family Court properly determined that under the circumstances, visitation with the father, who is incarcerated, would not be in Frank's best interests ( see Matter of Davis v. Davis, 232 A.D.2d 773; Mater of Simpson v. Finnigan, 202 A.D.2d 592, 593; Matter of Patsy M.C. v. Lorna W.C., 165 A.D.2d 813).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.