Opinion
2012-03-6
In the Matter of Daniel L. BASSUK, respondent, v. Anita M. BASSUK, appellant.
Etta Ibok, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. John W. Casey, Long Island City, N.Y., for respondent.
Etta Ibok, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. John W. Casey, Long Island City, N.Y., for respondent.
*864 Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a proceeding 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, Queens County (Negron, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated October 27, 2010, as precluded her from traveling with the subject child until he reached the age of eight.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The paramount concern in adjudicating visitation rights is the best interests of the child ( see Matter of Awan v. Awan, 63 A.D.3d 733, 734, 880 N.Y.S.2d 683, citing Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260). “Determinations as to custody and visitation are ordinarily a matter for the hearing court, and its determination will not be set aside unless lacking a sound and substantial basis in the record” ( Matter of Awan v. Awan, 63 A.D.3d at 734, 880 N.Y.S.2d 683). Here, the mother, in effect, renewed her prior applications for permission to travel with the subject child to Brazil. Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly precluded her from doing so until the child reaches the age of eight, in October 2012. The mother failed to meet her burden on her application of establishing that travel before the age of eight would be in the child's best interests ( see Matter of Awan v. Awan, 63 A.D.3d 733, 880 N.Y.S.2d 683; cf. Lolli–Ghetti v. Lolli–Ghetti, 162 A.D.2d 198, 199, 556 N.Y.S.2d 324).