IN RE: Matthew OLMSTED (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner-respondent father and respondent-petitioner mother each filed petitions seeking modification of the parties’ custody arrangement, whereby the parties had joint legal custody of the subject child and the mother had residential custody of the child. The mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, continued joint legal custody and granted the father increased visitation. We reject the mother's contention that Family Court erred in relying on facts outside the record in making its determination. It is well settled that “a court has the power to take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings” (Matter of Gugino v. Tsvasman, 118 A.D.3d 1341, 1342, 987 N.Y.S.2d 753 [4th Dept. 2014]; see Matter of Amyn C. [Chelsea K.], 144 A.D.3d 1690, 1690, 41 N.Y.S.3d 821 [4th Dept. 2016]; see also Matter of Hermann v. Williams, 179 A.D.3d 1545, 1546, 118 N.Y.S.3d 877 [4th Dept. 2020]). The record does not support the mother's contention that the court relied on allegations in prior petitions that were withdrawn in making its determination.

Contrary to the mother's further contentions, the court's determination that the parties would have joint decision-making regarding the child's medical and health issues is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see generally Matter of Dickes v. Johnston, 213 A.D.3d 1247, 1248-1249, 182 N.Y.S.3d 470 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 913, 2023 WL 3512985 [2023]), and the court gave the appropriate weight to the child's wishes (see generally Matter of Krier v. Krier, 178 A.D.3d 1372, 1373, 116 N.Y.S.3d 808 [4th Dept. 2019]; Matter of Biernbaum v. Burdick, 162 A.D.3d 1664, 1665, 80 N.Y.S.3d 761 [4th Dept. 2018]).

We agree with the mother that the court improperly disclosed information obtained from the Lincoln hearing. We must “remind the court that the disclosure of any statement made by a child during a confidential Lincoln hearing is improper, regardless of how innocuous that statement may appear to be” (Kaleta v. Kaleta, 225 A.D.3d 1293, 1295, 208 N.Y.S.3d 426 [4th Dept. 2024]). We conclude, however, that the error does not justify disturbing an otherwise valid determination (see generally Matter of Carter v. Work, 100 A.D.3d 1557, 1558, 954 N.Y.S.2d 384 [4th Dept. 2012]; Matter of Rivera v. LaSalle, 84 A.D.3d 1436, 1437, 923 N.Y.S.2d 254 [3d Dept. 2011]).