Vialardi v. Vialardi

 

Matter of Vialardi v Vialardi

2009 NY Slip Op 08628

Decided on November 17, 2009

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 17, 2009

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

MARK C. DILLON, J.P.

HOWARD MILLER

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO

THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JJ.

 

2008-11095

(Docket Nos. V-6542-07, V-7118-07)

[*1]In the Matter of Erin Vialardi, respondent,

v

Robert Vialardi, appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Robert Vialardi, appellant, Erin Vialardi, respondent. (Proceeding No. 2)

 

Berman Bavero Frucco & Gouz, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Ronald

J. Bavero and Howard Leitner of counsel), for appellant.

Miano & Colangelo, Harrison, N.Y. (Joseph R. Miano of

counsel), for respondent.

George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.

 

DECISION & ORDER

In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), dated November 25, 2008, as, after a hearing, awarded the mother final decision-making authority for the subject child.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto providing that the mother must consult with the father prior to exercising her final decision-making authority for the subject child; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

While a custody award is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, whose determination is entitled to great weight on appeal (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 173; Matter of Waldron v Dussek, 48 AD3d 471), here, the court should have directed that the mother consult with the father with respect to any issues involving the child's health, medical care, education, religion, and general welfare prior to exercising her final decision-making authority for the subject child.

DILLON, J.P., MILLER, ANGIOLILLO and DICKERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court

-------

Matter of Vialardi v Vialardi

2009 NY Slip Op 08629

Decided on November 17, 2009

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 17, 2009

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

MARK C. DILLON, J.P.

HOWARD MILLER

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO

THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JJ.

2009-03420

(Docket Nos. V-6542-07, V-7118-07)

 

[*1]In the Matter of Erin Vialardi, appellant,

v

Robert Vialardi, respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Robert Vialardi, respondent, Erin Vialardi, appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) Miano & Colangelo, Harrison, N.Y. (Joseph R. Miano of counsel), for appellant.

Berman Bavero Frucco & Gouz, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Ronald

J. Bavero and Howard Leitner of counsel), for respondent.

George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.

 

DECISION & ORDER

In related custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), dated March 25, 2009, as awarded the father liberal visitation with the subject child.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In adjudicating custody and visitation issues, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child (see Domestic Relations Law 70[a]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171; Matter of Waldron v Dussek, 48 AD3d 471, 472). The Family Court's determination in such matters is generally accorded great deference on appeal and should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d at 173). Here, the Family Court's determination awarding liberal visitation to the father had a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Ring v Ring, 15 AD3d 406, 407).

DILLON, J.P., MILLER, ANGIOLILLO and DICKERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court

 

Return to Appeals list