Opinion
2011-12-13
In the Matter of Michael ZWILLMAN, respondent, v. Donna KULL, appellant.
Courten & Villar, PLLC, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Dorothy A. Courten and Karyn A. Villar of counsel), for appellant. Clifford J. Petroske, P.C., Bohemia, N.Y., for respondent.
Courten & Villar, PLLC, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Dorothy A. Courten and Karyn A. Villar of counsel), for appellant. Clifford J. Petroske, P.C., Bohemia, N.Y., for respondent.
Linda S. Morrison, Commack, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated March 1, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition to modify a visitation schedule set forth in a stipulation of settlement dated September 11, 2006, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce entered June 7, 2007.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
When adjudicating visitation rights, the court's first concern is the welfare and interests of the child. Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and the child ( see Matter of Aguirre v. Romano, 73 A.D.3d 912, 900 N.Y.S.2d 150; Pollack v. Pollack, 56 A.D.3d 637, 868 N.Y.S.2d 243; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658; McGrath v. D'Angio–McGrath, 42 A.D.3d 440, 839 N.Y.S.2d 537; Twersky v. Twersky, 103 A.D.2d 775, 477 N.Y.S.2d 409). The best interests of the child lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents. In order for the noncustodial parent to develop a meaningful, nurturing relationship with the child, visitation must be frequent and regular. Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as where visitation would be detrimental to the child's well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges ( see Pollack v. Pollack, 56 A.D.3d 637, 868 N.Y.S.2d 243; Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658; Twersky v. Twersky, 103 A.D.2d 775, 477 N.Y.S.2d 409).
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the father's petition to modify the visitation schedule set forth in the parties' stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce entered June 7, 2007. Here, the father established that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification was necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child ( see Matter of Pavone v. Bronson, 88 A.D.3d 724, 930 N.Y.S.2d 280; Matter of Gant v. Chambliss, 86 A.D.3d 612, 926 N.Y.S.2d 918; Matter of Francois v. Grimm, 84 A.D.3d 1082, 924 N.Y.S.2d 275; Matter of Garcia v. Fountain, 82 A.D.3d 979, 918 N.Y.S.2d 729). The Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and there is no basis to disturb it ( see Matter of Manzella v. Milano, 82 A.D.3d 1242, 919 N.Y.S.2d 854; Matter of Waldron v. Dussek, 48 A.D.3d 471, 851 N.Y.S.2d 630; Matter of Steinhauser v. Haas, 40 A.D.3d 863, 837 N.Y.S.2d 660).