Gina M. Scelta, Huntington, N.Y., for appellant.
Janessa M. Trotto, Holbrook, N.Y., for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the child.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Linda M. Boggio, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated January 14, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon granting the father's petition to modify an order of custody and visitation of the Family Court, Queens County (Salvatore J. Modica, J.), dated June 30, 2005, directed that his visitation with the subject child be supervised.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
“It is within the sound discretion of the [Family Court] to determine whether visitation should be supervised” (Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658, quoting Matter of Morgan v. Sheevers, 259 A.D.2d 619, 620, 684 N.Y.S.2d 918 ; see Matter of Custer v. Slater, 2 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 768 N.Y.S.2d 854 ), and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d at 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 ; Matter of Khan v. Dolly, 39 A.D.3d 649, 651, 833 N.Y.S.2d 608 ; Matter of Kachelhofer v. Wasiak, 10 A.D.3d 366, 780 N.Y.S.2d 290 ; Matter of Levande v. Levande, 308 A.D.2d 450, 451, 764 N.Y.S.2d 123 ). “Supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child” (Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d at 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658, quoting Matter of Gainza v. Gainza, 24 A.D.3d 551, 551, 808 N.Y.S.2d 296 ; see Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 44 A.D.3d 1022, 1024, 845 N.Y.S.2d 371 ; Purcell v. Purcell, 5 A.D.3d 752, 753, 773 N.Y.S.2d 569 ).
Here, the evidence established that the subject child, who
was 11 years old at the time of the fact-finding hearing, and who has serious physical and mental health challenges, has had very little contact with his father since 2008, and that he became agitated when he saw his father. Accordingly, the Family Court did not improvidently
exercise its discretion in directing that the father's visitation with the child be supervised.
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.