| Matter of Mohabir v Singh |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08735 [78 AD3d 1056] |
| November 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Koontie Maureen Mohabir,Appellant, v Kumar Singh, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, themother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Ebrahimoff, Ct. Atty. Ref.),dated October 14, 2009, which denied, without a hearing, her petition to enforce an order ofvisitation of the same court dated May 16, 2008, and suspended her visitation with the subjectchild.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"A court must determine the best interests of the child when adjudicating . . .visitation issues" (Matter of Mera v Rodriguez, 73 AD3d 1069, 1069 [2010]; seeMatter of Thompson v Yu-Thompson, 41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]). "The determination ofvisitation issues is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, and should not be disturbedon appeal unless it lacks a substantial evidentiary basis in the record" (Matter of Thompson vYu-Thompson, 41 AD3d at 488; see Jordan v Jordan, 8 AD3d 444, 445 [2004]). "[A]noncustodial parent should have reasonable rights of visitation, and the denial of those rights to anatural parent is a drastic remedy which should only be invoked when there is substantialevidence that visitation would be detrimental to the child" (Matter of Mera v Rodriguez,73 AD3d at 1069; see Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008]; Matter ofGrisanti v Grisanti, 4 AD3d 471, 473 [2004]).
The Family Court's determination that visitation would not be in the best interests of thesubject child has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed (seeMatter of Mera v Rodriguez, 73 AD3d at 1069-1070). To the extent that the Family Courtrelied upon the in camera interview of the then-13-year-old child, it was entitled to place greatweight on the child's wishes, since he was mature enough to express them (see Matter ofMera v Rodriguez, 73 AD3d at 1069-1070; Matter of O'Connor v Dyer, 18 AD3d757 [2005]; Koppenhoefer v Koppenhoefer, 159 AD2d 113 [1990]).
Moreover, the Family Court, which was familiar with the parties from prior proceedings(see Matter of Hermann v Chakurmanian, 243 AD2d 1003, 1004-1005 [1997]),possessed adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and providentvisitation determination without conducting a hearing (see Matter of Mera v Rodriguez,73 AD3d at 1069-1070; Matter of Melikishvili v Grigolava, 20 AD3d 569, 570-571[2005]; Matter of Levande v Levande, 10 [*2]AD3d 723,723-724 [2004]; Matter of Williams v O'Toole, 4 AD3d 371 [2004]; Matter ofHermann v Chakurmanian, 243 AD2d at 1004-1005). Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson andChambers, JJ., concur.