| Matter of Doherty v Doherty |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02147 [49 AD3d 641] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Scott R. Doherty, Respondent, v Tammy J.Doherty, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kenneth J. Molloy, East Islip, N.Y., for respondent. Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Ethan Halpren of counsel), Law Guardian.
In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Luft, J.), dated January 29, 2007, which,after a fact-finding hearing, granted the father's petition to modify the judgment of divorce toprovide unsupervised and expanded visitation with the parties' daughter.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The father, who is the noncustodial parent of the parties' now nine-year-old daughter,commenced this proceeding seeking modification of the judgment of divorce entered inNovember 2003 which, inter alia, granted him supervised visitation with the child on a temporarybasis, which he could seek to expand after six months from that time. After a fact-findinghearing, the Family Court found that it was in the best interests of the child to allow unsupervisedand expanded visitation with the father.
Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and of the child (see Weiss vWeiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175 [1981]). In order for the noncustodial parent to develop ameaningful, nurturing relationship with the child, visitation must be frequent and regular (seeDaghir v Daghir, 82 AD2d 191, 193-194 [1981] affd 56 NY2d 938 [1982]). Absentextraordinary circumstances, where visitation would be detrimental to the child's well-being, anoncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation [*2]privileges (see Matter of Grisanti v Grisanti, 4 AD3d 471, 473 [2004];Matter of Schack v Schack, 98 AD2d 802 [1983]).
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the father's petition tomodify the judgment of divorce to provide unsupervised and expanded visitation with the parties'child. The uncontested evidence showed no extraordinary circumstances existed to justifycontinued interference with the father's right to reasonable visitation. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillonand Belen, JJ., concur.