Case ID: ad3d_35/html/0739-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of John Feliciano, Appellant, v Kim Micheli-Hartford, Respondent.
    [824 NYS2d 909]
   In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated March 13, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied his petition to direct that the mother’s visitation be supervised.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, he failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting modification of the visitation provisions of the stipulation agreement (see Matter of Abranko v Vargas, 26 AD3d 490 [2006]; Matter of Manos v Manos, 282 AD2d 749 [2001]; Matter of Brocher v Brocher, 213 AD2d 544 [1995]). Furthermore, the Family Court’s determination that it would not be in the child’s best interests to modify the mother’s visitation has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Abranko v Vargas, supra; Brocher v Brocher, supra).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.E, Skelos, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.