| Lew v Lew |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08999 [45 AD3d 648] |
| November 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Thierry Lew, Respondent, v Dorothy Lew,Appellant. |
—[*1] James E. Flood, Jr., Massapequa, N.Y., Law Guardian (no brief filed).
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, by permission, aslimited by her brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Diamond, J.), dated November 13, 2006, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the plaintiff'sapplication which was for increased visitation with the subject child, and (2) an order of the samecourt dated December 13, 2006, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of her motion which wasto suspend the plaintiff's visitation with the subject child, or, in the alternative, to require that anysuch visitation be supervised. By decisions and orders on motions of this Court dated December5, 2006, and January 10, 2007, respectively, inter alia, enforcement of the orders appealed fromwas stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeals.
Ordered that the order dated November 13, 2006 is modified, on the law and in the exerciseof discretion, by deleting the provision thereof setting forth a schedule for increased visitationand substituting therefor a provision setting forth a visitation schedule as follows:
"(A) alternate Sundays, commencing December 10, 2006, 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.;
"(B) every Wednesday 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.;
"(C) every Friday 5:00 P.M. to 7:30 P.M." as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar asappealed from, without costs or disbursements; and [*2]it isfurther,
Ordered that the order dated December 13, 2006 is modified, on the law and in the exerciseof discretion, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendant's motionwhich was to require that the plaintiff's visitation with the child be supervised and substitutingtherefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmedinsofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"When adjudicating visitation rights, the court's first concern is 'the welfare and the interestsof the children' " (McGrath vD'Angio-McGrath, 42 AD3d 440, 441 [2007], quoting Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln,24 NY2d 270, 272 [1969]). Here, at the present time, supervised visitation between theplaintiff and the subject child is in the child's best interest. Pending final resolution, we deem itappropriate that the parties abide by the visitation schedule set forth herein.
We note that our determination is based upon a very limited record and should not beconstrued as suggesting any particular outcome nor should it influence the Supreme Court'sadjudication of any issues relating to visitation made upon a complete record after a full hearingor trial, including whether visitation should be supervised. Rivera, J.P., Covello, Balkin andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.