IN RE: Herbert McMILLIAN (2006)

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated May 4, 2005, as denied that branch of his petition which was for overnight visitation with the subject child, and (2) from an order of the same court, also dated May 4, 2005, which denied his motion to adjudicate the mother in contempt of a temporary order of visitation of the same court (Tallmer, J.), dated May 22, 2003.

ORDERED that the first order dated May 4, 2005, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the second order dated May 4, 2005, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 “The determination of visitation to a noncustodial parent is within the sound discretion of the hearing court, based upon the best interests of the child” (Matter of Herrera v. O'Neill, 20 A.D.3d 422, 423, 798 N.Y.S.2d 126).   The Family Court's determination “depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the assessments of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents” (Maloney v. Maloney, 208 A.D.2d 603, 603, 617 N.Y.S.2d 190;  see Matter of Halpern v. Halpern, 20 A.D.3d 420, 420-421, 798 N.Y.S.2d 129).   While the express wishes of the child are not controlling, they are entitled to great weight, particularly where the child's age and maturity would make his or her input particularly meaningful (see Matter of O'Connor v. Dyer, 18 A.D.3d 757, 795 N.Y.S.2d 686;  Matter of Kocowicz v. Kocowicz, 306 A.D.2d 285, 285-286, 760 N.Y.S.2d 334).   Visitation determinations should not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Keylikhes v. Kiejliches, 25 A.D.3d 801, 801, 807 N.Y.S.2d 573).   In this case, the Family Court's finding that overnight visitation was not in the best interests of the child has a sound and substantial basis in the record.

The father failed to demonstrate by competent proof that the mother willfully violated the temporary order of visitation (cf. Matter of Laland v. Edmond, 13 A.D.3d 451, 785 N.Y.S.2d 718;  Matter of Holden v. Cardozo, 8 A.D.3d 567, 568, 778 N.Y.S.2d 885).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.