Opinion
No. 2023-06540 Docket Nos. O-8593-21 V-2680-21 V-2681-21 V-2682-21 V-6834-22 V-6835-22 V-6836-22
11-13-2024
In the Matter of Evelyn Esanbor, respondent, v. Dennis Ativie, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Dennis Ativie, appellant, Evelyn Esanbor, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Jan Murphy, Huntington, NY, for appellant. N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, NY (Tammy Feman and Argun M. Ulgen of counsel), for respondent. Lawrence M. Schaffer, Plainview, NY, attorney for the children.
Jan Murphy, Huntington, NY, for appellant.
N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, NY (Tammy Feman and Argun M. Ulgen of counsel), for respondent.
Lawrence M. Schaffer, Plainview, NY, attorney for the children.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., WILLIAM G. FORD, HELEN VOUTSINAS, PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 6 and 8, the father appeals from an amended order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Joy M. Watson, J.), dated June 21, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, directed that the father's parental access with the children take place solely in New York.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The primary consideration in deciding an issue of parental access is the best interests of the children (see Matter of Coull v Rottman, 131 A.D.3d 964, 965). "Where the court has conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of parental access, its findings must be accorded great weight, and its determination will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Franklin v Quinones, 225 A.D.3d 759, 760). Furthermore, while the express wishes of the children are not controlling, "they are entitled to great weight, particularly where their age and maturity would make their input particularly meaningful" (Matter of Cromwell v Arnette, 216 A.D.3d 775, 776 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court's determination that it was in the best interests of the children for parental access to take place solely in New York is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record.
The father's contention that the Family Court violated his due process rights by not allowing a certain member of his family to testify virtually is unpreserved for appellate review (see Madden v Desmond, 39 A.D.3d 822, 822). In any event, the decision to allow a witness to testify virtually is a matter committed to the court's sound discretion, and the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion here (see Matter of Rodney v Piombino, 225 A.D.3d 603, 604; Matter of Pamela N. v Aaron A., 159 A.D.3d 452, 453).
CONNOLLY, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and HOM, JJ., concur.