Opinion
Argued June 22, 1999
October 4, 1999
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Staton, J.).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the Law Guardian.
It is well settled that a noncustodial parent is entitled to meaningful visitation. Denial of that right is so drastic that it must be based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the welfare of the child ( see, Matter of Bradley v. Wright, 260 A.D.2d 477 [2d Dept., Apr. 12, 1999]; Matter of MacEwen v. MacEwen, 214 A.D.2d 572; Matter of Vanderhoff v. Vanderhoff, 207 A.D.2d 494). Further, the determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the hearing court based upon the best interests of the child ( see, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89; see also, Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer, 159 A.D.2d 113), and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a substantial basis in the record ( see, Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer, supra). Here, the hearing court's decision to grant the father unsupervised visitation has such a substantial basis.
The contentions of the mother and the Law Guardian that the court relied upon material not in the record in reaching its determination are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see, Matter of Thaxton v. Morro, 222 A.D.2d 955; Matter of Broome County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dennis, 97 A.D.2d 908).
THOMPSON, J.P., FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.