Matter of Patterson v Patterson

Matter of Matter of Patterson v Patterson 2012 NY Slip Op 00965 Decided on February 7, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 7, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
L. PRISCILLA HALL
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2010-11580
(Docket No. V-04591/09)

[*1]In the Matter of Thab D. Patterson, appellant,

v

Stacy Patterson, respondent.




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.


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 AD2d 364; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755; Webster v Webster, 163 AD2d 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 AD2d 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