Matter of Ammirata v Ammirata

2008 NY Slip Op 02803 [49 AD3d 829]

March 25, 2008

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, May 14, 2008

In the Matter of James W. Ammirata, Respondent, v GinaAmmirata, Appellant.

—[*1]Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Amy L. Colvin, Huntington, N.Y., for respondent.

William A. Sheeckutz, Wantagh, N.Y., attorney for the children.

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), dated September 29, 2006, which, after ahearing, granted her petition for increased visitation with her children only to the extent ofawarding her limited visitation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs and 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 [2007]; Matter of Manos v Manos, 282 AD2d 749 [2001]). Here, the evidencepresented at the hearing warranted increasing the visitation the mother was afforded. The mostimportant factor to be considered in adjudicating visitation rights is the best interests of thechildren (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 Family Court's determination modifying the visitation schedule andaffording the mother visitation on one weekend per month, one night per week, and various otherdays, was in the children's best interests (see Matter of Sullivan v Sullivan, 40 AD3d 865 [2007];Messinger v Messinger, 16 AD3d at 563).

The mother's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal andBelen, JJ., concur.