| Matter of Frank M. v Donna W. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07888 [44 AD3d 495] |
| October 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Frank M., Respondent, v Donna W.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Tarnow & Juvelier, LLP, New York City (Herman H. Tarnow and Christine M. Pellegrino ofcounsel), for respondent. Gail Steinhagen, New York City, Law Guardian.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or aboutNovember 21, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, denied respondent mother's cross motionto reinstate unsupervised visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Contrary to the mother's claim, supervision is not limited to instances where a court fears fora child's physical safety; rather, the court can also consider whether a parent is having a negativeimpact on the child's emotional well-being (see Allen v Farrow, 197 AD2d 327, 334[1994], appeal dismissed sub nom. Matter of Woody A. v Maria V.F., 84 NY2d 864[1994], 86 NY2d 761 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 709 [1995]; see also Karen K. vKenneth Z., 239 AD2d 159 [1997]). "It is well settled that the question of a child's bestinterest, the foremost consideration in matters of custody and visitation, is within the discretionof the trial court whose determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantialevidentiary basis" (Corsell v Corsell, 101 AD2d 766, 767 [1984]). The requisiteevidentiary basis exists for Family Court's finding that unsupervised visitation would have anegative impact on the child's well-being. However, we note that supervision was meant to betemporary and that almost two years have passed since Family Court's decision. As thecourt-appointed psychiatrist testified, supervision can interfere with the parent-child relationship;and as Family Court found, it is in the child's best interests eventually to enjoy unsupervisedvisitation with her mother. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, McGuire andKavanagh, JJ.