| Matter of Indig v Indig |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09644 [90 AD3d 1050] |
| December 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Shulem Indig, Respondent, v Chaya Indig,Also Known as Chaya Kenig, Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric Ole Thorsen, New City, N.Y., for respondent. Rachel Tanguay-McGuane, New City, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, RocklandCounty (Warren, J.), entered December 17, 2010, as, after a hearing, directed her to ensure that,during visitation, the children abide by the rules of their respective Satmar Hasidic communityschools whenever possible.
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal dated January 21, 2011, isdeemed to be a notice of appeal by the mother (see CPLR 2001; Matter of Tagliaferriv Weiler, 1 NY3d 605, 606 [2004]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The determination of visitation issues is entrusted to the sound discretion of the FamilyCourt, and must be based upon the best interests of the child (see Matter of Wiebke v Wiebke, 77 AD3d 964, 964 [2010]; Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone, 74 AD3d1337, 1338 [2010]; Matter ofThompson v Yu-Thompson, 41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]). The Family Court'sdetermination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Larkin v White, 79 AD3d751, 751 [2010]; Matter of Wiebke v Wiebke, 77 AD3d at 964; Matter ofCiccone v Ciccone, 74 AD3d at 1338).
The Family Court's determination that it would be in the children's best interests to direct themother to ensure that, during visitation, the children abide by the rules of their respective SatmarHasidic community schools whenever possible has a sound and substantial basis in the record,which includes a stipulation entered into by the parties (see Matter of Powell v Blumenthal, 35 AD3d 615, 617 [2006]; Matter of Booth v Booth, 8 AD3d1104, 1106 [2004]; Lebovich v Wilson, 155 AD2d 291, 291 [1989]; Matter ofBentley v Bentley, 86 AD2d 926, 927 [1982]).
The parties' remaining contentions and those of the attorney for the children are [*2]without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ.,concur.