IN RE: Ivery HALL (2008)

 We reject the contention of petitioner father that Family Court did not have jurisdiction to award sole custody of the parties' child to respondent mother because she did not file a cross petition seeking that relief.  “[T]he issue of an award of custody to any party was properly before the court [because, i]n a child custody proceeding, a court has the authority to ‘enter orders for custody ․ as, in the court's discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and to the best interests of the child’ ” (Matter of Miller v. Orbaker, 17 A.D.3d 1145, 1145-1146, 793 N.Y.S.2d 840, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 714, 806 N.Y.S.2d 165, 840 N.E.2d 134).   Contrary to the father's further contentions, the record supports the court's determination that “the best interests of the child[ ] would be served by supervised visitation at a neutral site” (Matter of Acker v. Acker, 212 A.D.2d 1014, 1014, 623 N.Y.S.2d 34;  see Matter of Westfall v. Westfall, 28 A.D.3d 1229, 813 N.Y.S.2d 623, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 706, 819 N.Y.S.2d 873, 853 N.E.2d 244), and by a gradual increase in the duration of the visits (see Matter of Pettengill v. Kirley, 25 A.D.3d 935, 936, 807 N.Y.S.2d 215).   Any error in the court's failure to afford the Law Guardian the opportunity to give a summation does not warrant reversal, inasmuch as the Law Guardian made her position clear to the court at the hearing and, “[n]otably, the Law Guardian does not seek reversal of [the] order [on appeal]” (Matter of Machukas v. Wagner, 246 A.D.2d 840, 842, 667 N.Y.S.2d 817, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 813, 674 N.Y.S.2d 278, 697 N.E.2d 179).

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

MEMORANDUM: