Cashel v Cashel

2007 NY Slip Op 09548 [46 AD3d 501]

December 4, 2007

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Thomas P. Cashel, Appellant, v Francine Cashel,Respondent.

—[*1]Saltzman Chetkof & Rosenberg, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Michael Chetkof and LeeRosenberg of counsel; Eve Helitzer on the brief), for appellant.

England & England P.C., Centereach, N.Y. (Donna England of counsel), for respondent.

Domenik Veraldi, Jr., Islandia, N.Y., Law Guardian.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the father appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), dated January 18, 2007, which denied his crossmotion, in effect, to prohibit contact between the parties' child and the mother's boyfriend JosephGalante during the mother's visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the trial court based uponthe best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a soundand substantial basis in the record (seeMatter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366 [2004]; Vinciguerra v Vinciguerra,294 AD2d 565, 565-566 [2002]). In the instant case, the Supreme Court's determination hasa sound and substantial basis in the record. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Covello and Balkin, JJ.,concur.