Rought v. Palidar

Apr 30, 2004
Versions:6 A.D.3d 1112
775 N.Y.S.2d 678
2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6302

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Allegany County (Lynn L. Hartley, J.H.O.), entered January 31, 2003. The order granted the parties joint custody of their child and fixed a visitation schedule.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: “[I]t is well settled that the standard to be applied in determining issues of visitation is the best interest^] of the child” (Matter of Mix v Gray, 265 AD2d 692, 693 [1999]). The visitation schedule fashioned by Family Court “permits the desirable end of more meaningful interaction between the child and his father” (Matter of Effner v Scott, 194 AD2d 890, 891 [1993]) and recognizes that “the best interests of the child lie in being nurtured by both parents” (Edgerly v Moore, 232 AD2d 214, 215 [1996]). We discern no basis for disturbing the court’s broad discretion in fashioning a visitation schedule (see Effner, 194 AD2d at 891-892). We reject the contention of respondent and the Law Guardian that the court improperly altered its original decision prior to an order having been submitted or entered on that decision. “ ‘Until then, the court had inherent power, sua sponte or at the behest of one of the parties, to reconsider ... its earlier decision’ ” (Saccone v Elm Hill Plaza, 5 AD3d 1028 [2004], quoting Levinger v General Motors Corp., 122 AD2d 419, 420 [1986]; see Scritchfield v Perry, 245 AD2d 1054 [1997]). We conclude that the court properly exercised that power in altering its original decision and fixing a more definite visitation schedule. Present—Green, J.P, Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.