IN RE: Margaret SEIDE (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Monica D. Shulman, J.), dated May 1, 2023.  The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, denied the father's petition for certain parental access with the parties’ child.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘[T]he Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning a remedy in matters of custody and [parental access], with the paramount concern being the best interests of the child’ ” (Matter of Johnson v. Kelly, 193 A.D.3d 735, 737, 145 N.Y.S.3d 581 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Lew v. Lew, 152 A.D.3d 520, 521, 58 N.Y.S.3d 145).  “Absent extraordinary circumstances, where [parental access] would be detrimental to the child's well-being, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable [parental access] privileges” (Matter of Franklin v. Quinones, 225 A.D.3d 759, 760, 208 N.Y.S.3d 209 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Johnson v. Kelly, 193 A.D.3d at 737, 145 N.Y.S.3d 581).  “ ‘Since the Family Court's determination with respect to custody and [parental access] depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, its findings are generally accorded great deference and will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of Khan v. Schwartz, 201 A.D.3d 718, 719, 156 N.Y.S.3d 894, quoting Matter of Hargrove v. Langenau, 138 A.D.3d 846, 847, 30 N.Y.S.3d 166;  see Matter of Colon v. Roggeman, 194 A.D.3d 1042, 1042–1043, 144 N.Y.S.3d 616).

Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court's determination that the parental access with the child sought by the father would be detrimental to the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Franklin v. Quinones, 225 A.D.3d at 761, 208 N.Y.S.3d 209;  Matter of Khan v. Schwartz, 201 A.D.3d at 719, 156 N.Y.S.3d 894;  Matter of Granzow v. Granzow, 168 A.D.3d 1049, 1050–1051, 93 N.Y.S.3d 115).

In light of the foregoing, the father's remaining contention need not be reached.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father's petition.

GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, LOVE and GOLIA, JJ., concur.