Matter of Secaatin Akyuz v Marilyn Akyuz

Matter of Akyuz v Akyuz 2006 NY Slip Op 04833 [30 AD3d 511] Decided on June 13, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 13, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
HOWARD MILLER, J.P.
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
ROBERT J. LUNN, JJ.
2005-07630 DECISION & ORDER

[*1]In the Matter of Secaatin Akyuz, appellant,

v

Marilyn Akyuz, respondent. (Docket Nos. V-6912-96, V-6913-96)




Pauline E. Braun, Valley Stream, N.Y., for appellant.
Sherri Donovan & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y., for
respondent.
Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine and Estella
J. Schoen of counsel), Law Guardian
for the children.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Goldstein, R.), dated June 16, 2005, which, after a hearing, inter alia, modified his visitation schedule to provide him with only three days of visitation during the summer.

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

The determination of the Family Court, which saw and heard the witnesses, is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Rho v Rho, 19 AD3d 605, 606). The testimony adduced at the hearing was sufficient to support the Family Court's determination that the modification of the father's visitation was in the best interests of the child.

Further, the father's contention that the Family Court erred in not reopening the hearing to admit the forensic report into evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Coles v Bailey, 267 AD2d 723). In any event, the record does not indicate that the report was necessary in order for the court to resolve the visitation issue (see Matter of Diaz v Santiago, 8 AD3d [*2]562, 563; Matter of Peters v Peters, 260 AD2d 952, 953).

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.
MILLER, J.P., SCHMIDT, MASTRO and LUNN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court