| Vollkommer v Vollkommer |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 09049 [101 AD3d 1108] |
| December 26, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jennifer-Anne Vollkommer, Appellant, v Michael J.Vollkommer, Jr., Respondent. |
—[*1] Hopkins & Kopilow, Garden City, N.Y. (Nicholas F. Miraglia of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (J. Murphy, J.), entered April23, 2012, as denied that branch of her motion which was to modify the visitation provisions of astipulation of settlement dated May 19, 2010, so as to require that the defendant's visitation withthe subject children be supervised, and granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion whichwas for an award of an attorney's fee, and directed that the attorney's fee was payable by theplaintiff's attorney.
Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff from so much of the order as granted that branch ofthe defendant's cross motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee, and directed that theattorney's fee was payable by the plaintiff's attorney, is dismissed, as the plaintiff is not aggrievedby that portion of the order (see CPLR 5511; Scopelliti v Town of New Castle,92 NY2d 944 [1998]; Matter of Miller vMiller, 96 AD3d 943, 943-944 [2012]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with one bill of costs.
"A custody or visitation order may be modified only 'upon a showing that there has been asubsequent change of circumstances and modification is required' " (Galanti v Kraus, 85 AD3d 723,724 [2011], quoting Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; see Matter of Wilson vMcGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381 [2004]). "The paramount concern in any custody orvisitation determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances"(Galanti v Kraus, 85 AD3d at 724; see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3dat 380-381; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; Friederwitzer vFriederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96 [1982]; Messinger v Messinger, 16 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]). Here, theSupreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to modify thevisitation provisions of the stipulation of settlement so as to require that the defendant's visitationwith the subject children be supervised, since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a change ofcircumstances warranting that the visitation provisions of the stipulation of settlement be somodified (see Gallagher v Dalton,46 AD3d 746, 746-747 [2007]; Messinger v Messinger, 16 AD3d at 563). Mastro,J.P., Rivera, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.