| Matter of Waldman v Waldman |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00108 [47 AD3d 637] |
| January 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jayson R. Waldman, Respondent, v Lisa F.Waldman, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jayson R. Waldman, Respondent, vLisa F. Waldman, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Lisa F. Waldman, Appellant, vJayson R. Waldman, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Ellen Pober Rittberg, Plainview, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child Farrah.
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence,J.), dated April 18, 2005, as, after a hearing, granted that branch of the father's petition which wasto modify an order of custody and visitation of the same court dated August 29, 2002, grantingher supervised visitation with the parties' children, by suspending all of her visitation with theparties' children, and directed that a final order of protection of the same court (Koenig, J.) datedMay 18, 2000, shall be extended until each of the children reaches 18 years of age.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated April 18, 2005, as related to theparties' child Evan is dismissed, as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,[*2]
Ordered that the order dated April 18, 2005, is modified,on the law, by deleting the provision thereof directing that the final order of protection dated May18, 2000, shall be extended with respect to the child Farrah until such child reaches 18 years ofage and substituting a provision therefor directing that the final order of protection shall beextended with respect to the child Farrah until April 18, 2010; as so modified, the order datedApril 18, 2005, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Since the parties' child Evan is now 18 years of age, he is not subject to the order appealedfrom (see Matter of Sassower-Berlin vBerlin, 31 AD3d 771, 772 [2006]).
With respect to the parties' child Farrah, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record tosupport the determination of the Family Court that a subsequent change of circumstancesrequired modification of the prior order of custody and visitation so as to suspend all visitationby the mother, and that the suspension of visitation was in the best interests of the child (seeFamily Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375,380-381 [2004]; Matter of Sullivan vSullivan, 40 AD3d 865, 866 [2007]; Matter of Strand-O'Shea v O'Shea, 32 AD3d 398 [2006]; Matter of Abranko v Vargas, 26 AD3d490, 491 [2006]). The record indicates that the child was placed under great emotionalstrain, her academic performance diminished, and she sustained various physical problems as aresult of the supervised visitation sessions with the mother. The Family Court was not obliged toaccept the recommendations of the mother's expert (see Matter of Strand-O'Shea v O'Shea,32 AD3d at 398-399; Matter of Sienkwicz v Sienkwicz, 298 AD2d 396 [2002]).
The Family Court also had a sound and substantial basis for extending the order of protectionwith respect to Farrah. However, the Family Court erred in extending the order of protection for aperiod greater than five years (see Family Ct Act § 842). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter,Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.