| Matter of Giannoulakis v Kounalis |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05637 [97 AD3d 748] |
| July 18, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Nektarios Giannoulakis,Appellant, v Christina Kounalis, Respondent. |
—[*1]
Richard A. Piccola, Flushing, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from (1)an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Negron, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated July 12, 2011,which, after a hearing, in effect, denied his petition, in effect, to modify a the visitation provisionof a prior order of the same court dated January 13, 2005, denying him visitation, and (2) anorder of the same court, also dated July 12, 2011, which dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"A court may modify an order awarding custody and visitation upon a showing that there hasbeen a subsequent change of circumstances and that modification is in the best interests of thechild" (Matter of Sinnott-Turner vKolba, 60 AD3d 774, 775 [2009]; see Matter of Abranko v Vargas, 26 AD3d 490, 491 [2006]). Anoncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation, and denial of that right must be based onsubstantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child (see Cervera v Bressler, 90 AD3d803, 806 [2011]; Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d at 775; Matter of Thompson v Yu-Thompson,41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]). "However, the determination of visitation is within the sounddiscretion of the trial court based upon the best interests of the child, and its determination willnot be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter ofSinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d at 775; see Cashel v Cashel, 46 AD3d 501, 501 [2007]).
Here, the Family Court properly determined that the father failed to establish that a change incircumstances warranted modification of the visitation provision of a prior order denying himvisitation (see Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d at 775, 776; Matter ofAbranko v Vargas, 26 AD3d at 491). The father had a history of abusive behavior, and aforensic evaluator, who had an opportunity to interview the parties, concluded, among otherthings, that the father had failed to take responsibility for his actions or rectify his behavior.Considering the evaluator's recommendation that no visitation be awarded, the father's offensivedemeanor during the hearing, and the fact that the father was arrested for domestic violence whilethe proceeding was pending, the Family Court's determination that therapeutic visitation was notin the best interests of the children [*2]should not be disturbed(cf. Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d at 775-776; Matter of Thompson vYu-Thompson, 41 AD3d at 488).
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion indeclining to conduct in camera interviews with the children (see Bibas v Bibas, 58 AD3d 586, 588 [2009]; Matter of Desroches v Desroches, 54AD3d 1035, 1036 [2008]; Matter ofPerez v Montanez, 31 AD3d 565, 566 [2006]; Matter of Picot v Barrett, 8 AD3d 288, 289 [2004]). Angiolillo,J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.