IN RE: Thab D. Patterson

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Thab D. Patterson, appellant, v. Stacy Patterson, respondent.

2010–11580 (Docket No. V–04591/09)

Decided: February 07, 2012

ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS L. PRISCILLA HALL ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ. Catherine S. Bridge, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y (Sena Kim–Reuter and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.

Argued—January 12, 2012

DECISION & ORDER

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated November 29, 2010, which, in effect, denied his motion for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of visitation and directed only limited visitation between the parties' minor child and him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father's contention, a hearing is not necessary where, as here, the Family Court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the subject child's best interests (see Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 60 AD3d 658;  Matter of Vanjak v. Pesa, 26 AD3d 512;  Assini v. Assini, 11 AD3d 417, 418;  Matter of Smith v. Molody–Smith, 307 A.D.2d 364;  Matter of Vangas v. Ladas, 259 A.D.2d 755;  Webster v. Webster, 163 A.D.2d 178).   The Family Court examined the parents over several court appearances, and conducted an in camera interview of the child to ascertain his wishes.   These proceedings were sufficient to enable the Family Court to make an informed and provident determination on the issue of visitation (see Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 60 AD3d 658;  Matter of Vangas v. Ladas, 259 A.D.2d 755), and there is no basis to overturn the Family Court's determination.

FLORIO, J.P., CHAMBERS, HALL and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard