Opinion
October 2, 1989
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Tejada, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, we find no impropriety or improvident exercise of discretion in the formulation of the visitation schedule (see, Nelms v Nelms, 135 A.D.2d 518; Kandel v Kandel, 129 A.D.2d 617; People ex rel. Cramp v Cramp, 117 A.D.2d 762). Eiber, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.