Gail Jacobs, Great Neck, N.Y., for appellant. Lisa Siano, Uniondale, N.Y., for respondent.
Dennis G. Monahan, Nesconset, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.H.O.), dated August 2, 2011, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the mother's petition for leave to relocate with the parties' child to Buffalo, and (2) stated portions of an order of the same court dated October 18, 2011, which, among other things, awarded him only certain visitation.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
“When reviewing a custodial parent's request to relocate, the court's primary focus must be on the best interests of the child” (Matter of Giraldo v. Gomez, 49 A.D.3d 645, 645, 852 N.Y.S.2d 842;see Matter of Said v. Said, 61 A.D.3d 879, 881, 878 N.Y.S.2d 384). Here, the Family Court, upon weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v. Tropea (87 N.Y.2d 727, 740–741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145), properly determined that relocation was in the best interests of the parties' child.
“The court has discretion to determine what, if any, visitation is in the best interests of the child” (Matter of Franklin v. Richey, 57 A.D.3d 663, 664, 869 N.Y.S.2d 187 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mera v. Rodriguez, 73 A.D.3d 1069, 899 N.Y.S.2d 893). “This determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a substantial evidentiary basis in the record” ( Franklin v. Richey, 57 A.D.3d at 664, 869 N.Y.S.2d 187 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Wispe v. Leandry, 63 A.D.3d 853, 880 N.Y.S.2d 497;Matter of Thompson v. Yu–Thompson, 41 A.D.3d 487, 488, 837 N.Y.S.2d 313). Contrary to the father's contention, the visitation award was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Thus, the Family Court's determination will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Manzella v. Milano, 82 A.D.3d 1242, 919 N.Y.S.2d 854).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, DICKERSON and LOTT, JJ., concur.