MARMOLEJO v. CALABRESE (2005)

Petitioner contends that Family Court erred in dismissing his petition seeking visitation with his daughter without conducting a hearing to determine whether visitation is in his daughter's best interests.   We reject that contention.   Petitioner was incarcerated shortly before his daughter's birth in 1993 and has never seen his daughter.   In addition, he admitted in an affidavit that he will be deported upon his release from prison.   An evidentiary hearing was not required herein because “it is clear from the record that the court ‘possessed sufficient information to render an informed determination that was consistent with the child's best interests' ” (Matter of Bogdan v. Bogdan, 291 A.D.2d 909, 909, 738 N.Y.S.2d 278, quoting Matter of Vangas v. Ladas, 259 A.D.2d 755, 687 N.Y.S.2d 399;  see Matter of Oliver S. v. Chemung County Dept. of Social Servs., 162 A.D.2d 820, 821-822, 557 N.Y.S.2d 729), particularly in view of the lengthy period of petitioner's incarceration (see Matter of Gutkaiss v. Leahy, 285 A.D.2d 752, 726 N.Y.S.2d 826;  Matter of Bougor v. Murray, 283 A.D.2d 695, 724 N.Y.S.2d 215), the “virtually nonexistent previous relationship” of petitioner with his daughter (Matter of Ellett v. Ellett, 265 A.D.2d 747, 748, 698 N.Y.S.2d 740;  see Gutkaiss, 285 A.D.2d at 753, 726 N.Y.S.2d 826), and the fact that petitioner will be deported upon his release from prison.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: