| Matter of Bullinger v Costa |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04421 [63 AD3d 735] |
| June 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Steven J. Bullinger,Respondent, v Jennifer L. Costa, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofJennifer L. Costa, Appellant, v Steven J. Bullinger, Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] J. Gary Waldvogel, Smithtown, N.Y., for respondent. Michael S. Bromberg, Sag Harbor, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6,the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court,Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated November 17, 2008, as, after a hearing, granted that branchof the father's petition which was for unsupervised visitation with the child.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exerciseof discretion, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the father's petition which was forunsupervised visitation is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County,to determine who shall supervise visitation and to set a visitation schedule, and for the entry ofan amended order thereafter.
In these related child custody and visitation proceedings, the Family Court awarded themother, who was never married to the father, custody of the subject child. The court alsoawarded the [*2]father regular, unsupervised visitation. TheFamily Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the father unsupervisedvisitation with the subject child.
Supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervisedvisitation would be detrimental to the child (see Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008]; Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 44 AD3d1022, 1024 [2007]; Matter ofPowell v Blumenthal, 35 AD3d 615, 616 [2006]). Given the totality of thecircumstances (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]), including theyoung age of the child, the father's demonstrated inability to control his anger in the child'spresence, his general disregard for the safety of others—including the child—duringhis violent fits of rage, and the evidence of his abuse of alcohol and possibly other substances,unsupervised visitation is not in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Powell vBlumenthal, 35 AD3d at 616-617; Matter of Elnatanova v Administration for Children's Servs., 34 AD3d802, 803 [2006]; Matter of Anaya vHundley, 12 AD3d 594, 595 [2004]; Matter of Simpson v Simrell, 296 AD2d621, 621-622 [2002]; Matter of Morgan v Sheevers, 259 AD2d 619, 620 [1999]). Fisher,J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.