ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The appointment of a Law Guardian is discretionary (see, Blauvelt v. Blauvelt, 219 A.D.2d 694; Matter of Del Sordo v. Maholsic, 199 A.D.2d 1038, 1039; Frizzell v. Frizzell, 177 A.D.2d 825; Matter of Evans v. Evans, 127 A.D.2d 998). Although custody is no longer at issue, the issue of visitation is still unresolved. Consequently, the Law Guardian's appointment was appropriate, as it will assist the Supreme Court in making its determination on that issue (see, Vecchiarelli v. Vecchiarelli, 238 A.D.2d 411, 413; Holsberg v. Shankman, 171 A.D.2d 1067; Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer, 159 A.D.2d 113, 117]).
Further, under the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court's apportionment of the Law Guardian's fee was proper (see, Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 270 A.D.2d 242; Matter of Bungay v. Morin, 256 A.D.2d 462; Pastarnack v. Pastarnack, 248 A.D.2d 604; Petek v. Petek, 239 A.D.2d 327, 329; Hughes v. Hughes, 224 A.D.2d 389; Cilento v. Cilento, 225 A.D.2d 648; Mouscardy v. Mouscardy, 63 A.D.2d 973).