ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated June 5, 2001, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated August 14, 2001, made upon reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 14, 2001, as granted the appellant's application for services and assistance is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellant is not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated August 14, 2001, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion when it indefinitely suspended her supervised visitation with the subject children. An indefinite suspension of supervised visitation was in the best interests of the subject children (see Matter of Melinda A. v. Greene County Dept. of Social Servs., 278 A.D.2d 754; Matter of Licitra v. Licitra, 255 A.D.2d 384, 385). The record supports the finding that the appellant has chronically used her visitation time to behave in a manner which has caused the children, who have special needs, emotional distress. Even in the presence of a supervisor, the appellant persisted in making comments designed to denigrate the children, as well as the father of one child (see Matter of Licitra v. Licitra, supra). The record also supports the finding that continued supervised visitation would be detrimental to the children's therapy and development (see Matter of Melinda A. v. Greene County Dept. of Social Servs., supra).
The appellant's remaining contentions, insofar as reviewed, are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.