| Matter of Taylor v Taylor |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07177 [77 AD3d 669] |
| October 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Marcia Taylor, Appellant, v Horace Taylor,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Horace Taylor, Respondent, v Marcia Taylor,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for respondent. Norbert H. Brown, Jr., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order ofthe Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), entered April 6, 2009, which, after a hearing, interalia, granted the father's violation petition and changed the holiday visitation schedule by setting forthspecific holidays on which each parent would have the child, and prohibiting the parents from deviatingfrom the schedule without prior court approval.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
When making a determination with respect to visitation, the most important factor is the bestinterests of the child (see Matter of Balgley vCohen, 73 AD3d 1038 [2010]; Matter of Shockome v Shockome, 53 AD3d 618, 619 [2008]). Avisitation order may be modified upon a showing of sufficient change in circumstances since the entry ofthe prior order such that modification is warranted to further the child's best interests (see Matter ofBalgley v Cohen, 73 AD3d at 1038; Matter of Shockome v Shockome, 53 AD3d at619). Here, in light of the inability of the parents to communicate with each other, it was not animprovident exercise of the Family Court's discretion to modify the holiday visitation schedule by settingforth specific holidays on which each parent would have the child, and prohibiting the parents fromdeviating from the schedule without prior court approval. Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers,JJ., concur.