Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Upon our review of the record we find that there is substantial evidence that visitation with the petitioner would be inimical to the children's welfare at this time (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170, 175; cf., Valenza v Valenza, 143 A.D.2d 860; Resnick v Zoldan, 134 A.D.2d 246; Janousek v Janousek, 108 A.D.2d 782). The record indicates that the children had had virtually no contact with their father for the preceding seven years, that their last visit with him in 1982 was particularly disruptive to them, and that they were both vehemently opposed to visitation. While the stated desires of the children are not decisive (see, Bubbins v Bubbins, 136 A.D.2d 672; Matter of Eric L. v Dorothy L., 130 A.D.2d 660, 661), in light of the other circumstances present in this case, the Family Court's determination that visitation is contrary to the children's best interests should not be disturbed (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Bracken and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.