Opinion
2018–12864 Index No. V–19580–16
05-15-2019
In the Matter of Shankaranarayanan RAJAKKANNAN, Respondent, v. Sitaramarao Seema PRADHAN, Appellant.
Peter C. Lomtevas, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Mark D. Imber, Garden City, NY, for respondent. Laurette D. Mulry, Central Islip, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the child.
Peter C. Lomtevas, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Mark D. Imber, Garden City, NY, for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Central Islip, N.Y. (John B. Belmonte of counsel), attorney for the child.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties are the parents of one child. Pursuant to the parties' judgment of divorce, the father had custody and the mother had unsupervised parental access with the child. The father petitioned to suspend the mother's unsupervised parental access with the child. The Family Court granted the petition and awarded the mother only supervised parental access and therapeutic parental access with the child. The mother appeals.
"A party seeking to modify a prior [parental access] order must show that there has been a sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of the order such that modification is warranted to further the children's best interests" ( Matter of Henry v. Tucker, 157 A.D.3d 892, 893, 67 N.Y.S.3d 475 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Licato v. Jornet, 146 A.D.3d 787, 787, 45 N.Y.S.3d 171 ). "Supervised [parental access] is appropriately required only where it is established that unsupervised [parental access] would be detrimental to the child" ( Cervera v. Bressler, 50 A.D.3d 837, 839, 855 N.Y.S.2d 658 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Henry v. Tucker, 157 A.D.3d at 893, 67 N.Y.S.3d 475 ). The determination of whether parental access should be supervised is a matter left to the trial court's sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Henry v. Tucker, 157 A.D.3d at 893, 67 N.Y.S.3d 475 ; Matter of Kraft v. Orsini, 136 A.D.3d 916, 917, 25 N.Y.S.3d 321 ). Here, contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court's determination that supervised parental access and therapeutic parental access was in the best interests of the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Henry v. Tucker, 157 A.D.3d at 893 ; Matter of Torres v. Ojeda, 108 A.D.3d 570, 571, 968 N.Y.S.2d 191 ).
The mother's remaining contention is without merit.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.