Opinion
May 6, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.).
Substantial evidence supports the finding that overnight and unsupervised visitation by defendant at this time would be detrimental to the child's welfare ( see, Matter of MacEwen v MacEwen, 214 A.D.2d 572). This evidence included the recommendations of two court-appointed psychiatrists, both of whom reported that defendant did not understand the effect that his words and inappropriate behaviors were having on the child's emotional well-being ( see, Allen v. Farrow, 197 A.D.2d 327, 334, appeal dismissed sub nom. Matter of Woody A. v. Maria V. F., 84 N.Y.2d 864, 86 N.Y.2d 761, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 709), and one of whom testified that, as confirmed by his interviews with the child's personal psychiatrist, the child was fearful of overnight visitation with defendant ( see, Matter of Thaxton v. Morro, 222 A.D.2d 955), and plaintiff's affidavit that the child was unable to function in various significant ways after overnight visitations with defendant. Defendant continues to have up to 12 hours of supervised visitation a week, and the curtailment of the unsupervised and overnight aspects of that visitation are intended to be temporary, restoration thereof dependent upon the child's showing that she no longer fears defendant's visitation.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.