| Matter of Singh v Singh |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08643 [112 AD3d 949] |
| December 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Gurdeep Singh,Appellant, v Gurmail Singh et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Diana H. Kelly, Jamaica, N.Y. for respondent Gurmail Singh. Helene Bernstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent Sarbjeet Kaur. Kristine M. Marshall, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a sibling visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, thepetitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.),dated November 18, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed his petitionseeking visitation with his minor sibling.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"[T]he determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the trial courtbased upon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set asideunless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Lane v Lane, 68AD3d 995, 997 [2009]; seeMatter of Torres v Ojeda, 108 AD3d 570, 570-571 [2013]). The Family Court'sdetermination that the denial of visitation between the petitioner and the subject childwas in the child's best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record and,therefore, we find no basis to disturb it (see Matter of Samuel S. v Dayawathie R., 63 AD3d 746,747 [2009]; Matter of Samia Z., 297 AD2d 385 [2002]; Matter of Licitra vLicitra, 255 AD2d 384 [1998]). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.[*2]
Motion by the respondent Sarbjeet Kaur on anappeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated November 18, 2011,inter alia, to strike stated portions of the appellant's brief on the ground that they refer tomatter dehors the record. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated September10, 2013, that branch of the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel ofJustices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and the papers submitted inopposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of theappellant's brief is denied. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.