Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 8, 1990, as provided that visitation be supervised by Virginia Cordero is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that part of the order was superseded by the order dated March 8, 1991; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated August 8, 1990, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 8, 1991, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well established that the preeminent concern in child custody matters is the best interest of the child (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89). Inasmuch as neither parent has a prima facie right to custody (see, Domestic Relations Law § 70), the court must conduct a comprehensive hearing and carefully consider all applicable factors in determining the best interest of the child (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 171-174). The court's determination, rendered after a full evidentiary hearing, is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be set aside where it is in conformity with the evidence (see, Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946). After a review of the hearing record, we agree with the hearing court that the best interests of the child will be served by awarding custody to the father. Furthermore, we reject the mother's contentions that the hearing court erred in requiring that her visitation with the child be supervised (see, Matter of James P.W. v Eileen M.W., 136 A.D.2d 549) and that the hearing court erred in failing to appoint a law guardian (see, Richard D. v Wendy P., 47 N.Y.2d 943). Kunzeman, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.