—[*1] Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for appellant.

Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, denied petitioner father's application for visitation with the parties' minor child, except to the extent of allowing limited written communication via mail, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is a sound and substantial evidentiary basis for the Family Court's determination that it is not in the subject child's best interest to award petitioner visitation (Corsell v Corsell, 101 AD2d 766 [1st Dept 1984]). The evidence establishes that petitioner's lack of visitation with the subject child, over a period of many years, was the result of his own inaction and not due to the mother's interference. Moreover, the record supports the court's determination that visitation would have a negative impact on the child's emotional well-being (see Matter of Frank M. v Donna W., 44 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2007]; Matter of Mohabir v Singh, 78 AD3d 1056 [2d Dept 2010]). Finally, under the circumstances, the court properly provided for limited written communication with the child, which the child may read at her discretion (see Matter of Tristram K., 65 AD3d 894 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Clark, JJ.