| Matter of Zwillman v Kull |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09139 [90 AD3d 774] |
| December 13, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Michael Zwillman, Respondent, v DonnaKull, Appellant. |
—[*1] Clifford J. Petroske, P.C., Bohemia, N.Y., for respondent. Linda S. Morrison, Commack, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated March 1, 2011, which, after ahearing, granted the father's petition to modify a visitation schedule set forth in a stipulation ofsettlement dated September 11, 2006, which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment ofdivorce entered June 7, 2007.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
When adjudicating visitation rights, the court's first concern is the welfare and interests of thechild. Visitation is a joint right of the noncustodial parent and the child (see Matter of Aguirre v Romano, 73AD3d 912 [2010]; Pollack vPollack, 56 AD3d 637 [2008]; Cervera v Bressler, 50 AD3d 837 [2008]; McGrath v D'Angio-McGrath, 42AD3d 440 [2007]; Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775 [1984]). The best interests ofthe child lie in being nurtured and guided by both parents. In order for the noncustodial parent todevelop a meaningful, nurturing relationship with the child, visitation must be frequent andregular. Absent extraordinary circumstances, such as where visitation would be detrimental to thechild's well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable visitation privileges (see Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d637 [2008]; Cervera v Bressler,50 AD3d 837 [2008]; Twersky v Twersky, 103 AD2d 775 [1984]).
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the father'spetition to modify the visitation schedule set forth in the parties' stipulation of settlement, whichwas incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce entered June 7, 2007. Here, thefather established that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification wasnecessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child (see Matter of Pavone v Bronson, 88AD3d 724 [2011]; Matter of Gant vChambliss, 86 AD3d 612 [2011]; Matter of Francois v Grimm, 84 AD3d 1082 [2011]; Matter of Garcia v Fountain, 82 AD3d979 [2011]). The Family Court's determination has a sound and substantial basis in therecord, and there is no basis to disturb it (see Matter of Manzella v Milano, 82 AD3d 1242 [2011]; Matter of Waldron v Dussek, 48 AD3d471 [2008]; Matter of Steinhauser v Haas, 40 AD3d [*2]863 [2007]). Mastro, A.P.J., Hall, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.