Opinion
November 15, 1993
Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court was not divested of jurisdiction over the matters of custody and visitation by the subsequent commencement of a matrimonial action in the Supreme Court during the pendency of the Family Court proceeding (see, Family Ct Act § 651 [b]; Matter of James P.W. v Eileen M.W., 136 A.D.2d 549, 550; cf., Matter of Poliandro v Poliandro, 119 A.D.2d 577). We further note that review by this Court of the husband's appeal from the order entered December 24, 1991, is not precluded on the ground that the order was entered into upon consent of the parties; nowhere in the order is it stated that the order was entered on consent (cf., Goodman v Goodman, 150 A.D.2d 636; Bahr v Bahr, 105 A.D.2d 725).
We find that the Family Court's determination that the petitioner wife was the more appropriate custodial parent was proper (see, Matter of James P.W. v Eileen M.W., supra). Further, we find no basis in the record for disturbing the court's determination concerning supervised visitation (see, Matter of James P.W. v Eileen M.W., supra; Thomas J.D. v Catharine K.D., 79 A.D.2d 1015, 1017).
Finally, the Family Court properly dismissed the husband's petition for modification of the aforementioned order, inasmuch as he failed to sufficiently demonstrate a "change in circumstances" warranting his request for joint custody of the parties' children (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240; see also, Sorrentino v Sorrentino, 122 A.D.2d 604; Matter of Sooy v Sooy, 101 A.D.2d 287, 288-289, affd sub nom. Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S., 64 N.Y.2d 946). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.