Opinion
March 14, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the third decretal paragraph thereof is deleted.
We find that the Supreme Court improperly directed that the petitioner father would be awarded custody of the parties' child in the event the mother failed to abide by the visitation provisions contained in a previous order. While a court may award custody of a child to either parent "for such time, under such regulations and restrictions, and with such provisions and directions, as the case may require" (see, Domestic Relations Law § 70), a court should not utilize its power over custody as a means to control or regulate the future acts of a particular party (see, Friedenberg v. Friedenberg, 136 A.D.2d 593).
Since the court, in the instant case, essentially "threatened" to transfer custody of the child to the father, without the benefit of a full and comprehensive hearing and without due regard for the best interests of the child, the order must be reversed insofar as appealed from (see, Mosesku v. Mosesku, 108 A.D.2d 795; State ex rel. Hathaway v. Baker, 103 A.D.2d 762; Anstett v. Wolcott, 94 A.D.2d 692). Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.