Opinion
July 12, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.
Present — Boomer, J.P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in preventing plaintiff from taking the parties' three-year-old child on flights in his private plane when exercising visitation rights. Irrespective of plaintiff's competence as a pilot, a child of such tender years is less capable of protecting herself in the event of an incident, particularly in a single-engine craft. The court correctly concluded that, at the current stage of her development, flying in plaintiff's plane was not in the child's best interest.
The trial court also properly directed that the parties share, according to their respective incomes, the responsibility for payment of medical and dental expenses not covered by insurance (see, Matter of Rubinstein v Bates, 128 A.D.2d 536; Grillo v Grillo, 86 A.D.2d 965) and that plaintiff be entitled to claim the child as an exemption for income tax purposes (see, Formato v Formato, 134 A.D.2d 564). Moreover, the court did not exceed its powers in directing defendant, as custodial parent, to execute a waiver of her right to claim that exemption (see, Wassif v Wassif, 77 Md. App. 750, 551 A.2d 935; In re Marriage of Milesnick, ___ Mont ___, 765 P.2d 751; McKenzie v Jahnke, 432 N.W.2d 556 [ND]; In re Marriage of Einhorn, 178 Ill. App.3d 212, 533 N.E.2d 29; Hughes v Hughes, 35 Ohio St.3d 165, 518 N.E.2d 1213; Hooper v Hooper, Tenn Ct App, Feb. 9, 1988, lv denied ___ S.W.2d ___ [decided May 2, 1988]; In re Pergolski v Pergolski, 143 Wis.2d 166, 420 N.W.2d 414; In re Lincoln v Lincoln, 155 Ariz. 272, 746 P.2d 13; Fudenberg v Molstad, 390 N.W.2d 19 [Minn]).