Case Name: In the Matter of Georgia Vachaviolos, Appellant, v. Manuel D. Rosa, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-12-03
Citations: 123 A.D.3d 731
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Georgia Vachaviolos, Appellant, v Manuel D. Rosa, Respondent.
Judges: Rivera, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 731–731

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Georgia Vachaviolos, Appellant, v Manuel D. Rosa, Respondent.
[997 NYS2d 721]

Opinion:
Appeal from two orders of the Family Court, Orange County (Andrew P. Bivona, J.), both entered August 29, 2013. The first order, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the mother's family offense petition. The second order, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, denied the mother's motion to modify a custody and visitation order of the same court dated May 21, 2012, by adding thereto a provision that the father's visitation with the parties' child be supervised.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The determination of the hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses, is entitled to deference and is to be upheld unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Reyes v Gill, 119 AD3d 804 [2014]; Matter of Mack v Kass, 115 AD3d 748 [2014]). Here, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that the appellant failed to establish a change of circumstances warranting modification of a prior custody and visitation order so as to provide for the father's visitation to be supervised to further the child's best interests (see Matter of Diaz v Garcia, 119 AD3d 682 [2014]; Matter of Danner v NePage, 100 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2012]; Matter of Joseph YY. v Terri YY., 75 AD3d 863, 866 [2010]). Accordingly, the determination will not be disturbed (see Matter of Diaz v Garcia, 119 AD3d at 683).
The appellant's remaining contentions, and those of the attorney for the child, are without merit.
Rivera, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.