| Matter of Echols v Weiner |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10154 [46 AD3d 825] |
| December 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Sean A. Echols, Appellant, v EllenWeiner, Respondent. |
—[*1] Helene M. Selznick, Somers, N.Y., for respondent. Robin D. Carton, Harrison, N.Y., Law Guardian.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, to modify the visitationprovisions of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Edlitz, J.), dated June 30, 2006,the father appeals from an order of the same court entered February 9, 2007, which, after ahearing, denied that branch of his petition which was for increased visitation during the subjectchild's school vacations.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A visitation order may be modified upon a showing of a subsequent change of circumstancesand that modification is required (see Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Matter of Sullivan v Sullivan, 40 AD3d865, 866 [2007]; Matter of Manos v Manos, 282 AD2d 749 [2001]). Here, nochange in circumstances occurred which would warrant increasing the liberal visitation alreadyafforded to the father. The most important factor to be considered in adjudicating visitation rightsis the best interests of the child (see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 381[2004]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 95-96 [1982]; Messinger v Messinger, 16 AD3d562, 563 [2005]). The record supports the Family Court's determination that the father failedto demonstrate that a modification of the visitation schedule was in the subject child's bestinterests (see Matter of Sullivan vSullivan, 40 AD3d 865 [2007]; Messinger v Messinger, 16 AD3d at 563).[*2]
There was no evidence that the Law Guardian had aconflict of interest or failed to diligently represent the best interests of the parties' child (see Matter of Brittany W., 25 AD3d560 [2006]; Matter of King v King, 266 AD2d 546, 547 [1999]). Miller, J.P., Ritter,Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.