Beaudry v Beaudry

Beaudry v Beaudry 2012 NY Slip Op 03391 Decided on May 1, 2012 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 May 1, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-04795
(Index No. 29211/07)

[*1]Toniann Beaudry, respondent,

v

Michael Beaudry, appellant.




Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. (Marshall D.
Sweetbaum of counsel), for appellant.
Glenn S. Koopersmith, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.
Danielle I. Schwager, P.C., Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the
child.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), entered May 5, 2011, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded him only supervised visitation with the parties' child and awarded the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $60,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court's determination that the defendant's visitation with the parties' child should be supervised is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Anwar v Sani, 78 AD3d 827, 828; Matter of Roldan v Nieves, 76 AD3d 634, 635; Matter of Custer v Slater, 2 AD3d 1227, 1228).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $60,000 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a]; Anderson v Anderson, 50 AD3d 610, 611).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court