Opinion
CAF 03-00810.
Decided April 30, 2004.
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.
PUSATIER SHERMAN ABBOTT SUGARMAN, KENMORE (DEBORAH A. HAENDIGES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
DEBORAH GERBER FARBER, LAW GUARDIAN, PENFIELD, FOR JAMES M.P.
Before: PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, GORSKI, AND HAYES, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
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[s] of the child" ( Matter of Mix v. Gray, 265 A.D.2d 692, 693). 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 A.D.2d 890, 891) and recognizes that "the best interests of the child lie in being nurtured by both parents" ( Edgerly v. Moore, 232 A.D.2d 214, 215). We discern no basis for disturbing the court's broad discretion in fashioning a visitation schedule ( see Effner, 194 A.D.2d 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 A.D.3d 1028 [Mar. 19, 2004], quoting Levinger v. General Motors Corp., 122 A.D.2d 419, 420; see Scritchfield v. Perry, 245 A.D.2d 1054). We conclude that the court properly exercised that power in altering its original decision and fixing a more definite visitation schedule.