Opinion
2014-12-10
In the Matter of Daniel COSTIGAN, respondent, v. Elizabeth RENNER, appellant.
Steven P. Forbes, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Daniel A. Costigan, P.C., Fresh Meadows, N.Y. (Daniel Costigan, pro se, of counsel), for respondent.
Steven P. Forbes, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Daniel A. Costigan, P.C., Fresh Meadows, N.Y. (Daniel Costigan, pro se, of counsel), for respondent.
David Laniado, Cedarhurst, N.Y., attorney for the children.
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Stephen J. Bogacz, J.), dated September 24, 2013. The order, upon, in effect, granting the father's motion to confirm a report of a Referee (Julie Stanton, Ct.Atty.Ref.), made after a hearing, and upon, in effect, denying the mother's cross motion to reject the Referee's report and for a new hearing, granted the father's petition to modify the visitation provisions of a prior order of that court dated September 28, 2012, so as to, inter alia, limit the mother to therapeutically supervised visitation with the subject children.
ORDERED that the order dated September 24, 2013, is affirmed, with costs.
“In determining visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child” ( Matter of Hansen v. Balkaran, 111 A.D.3d 827, 827, 976 N.Y.S.2d 105). A visitation order may be modified upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances since entry of the prior order such that modification is warranted to further the child's best interests ( see id.; Matter of Abranko v. Vargas, 26 A.D.3d 490, 491, 810 N.Y.S.2d 509). The determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Burrell v. Burrell, 101 A.D.3d 1193, 954 N.Y.S.2d 713; Matter of Gilmartin v. Abbas, 60 A.D.3d 1058, 877 N.Y.S.2d 347; Matter of Tercjak v. Tercjak, 49 A.D.3d 772, 854 N.Y.S.2d 453).
Here, the Family Court's determination that a change of circumstances had occurred, warranting modification of the visitation provisions of an order of that court dated September 28, 2012, to the extent of requiring that the mother's visitation occur under therapeutic supervision, has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see Matter of Paul A. v. Shaundell, LL., 117 A.D.3d 1346, 987 N.Y.S.2d 463; Matter of Hansen v. Balkaran, 111 A.D.3d at 827, 976 N.Y.S.2d 105; Matter of Gabriel J. [Daniee A.], 100 A.D.3d 572, 955 N.Y.S.2d 18; Matter of Bullinger v. Costa, 63 A.D.3d 735, 880 N.Y.S.2d 336; Matter of James Joseph M. v. Rosana R., 32 A.D.3d 725, 726, 821 N.Y.S.2d 168).
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not condition her right to visitation on her participation in a psychiatric evaluation and therapy ( see Matter of Hansen v. Balkaran, 111 A.D.3d at 827, 976 N.Y.S.2d 105).
The mother's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.