Matter of Reynaldo M. v Violet F.

Matter of Reynaldo M. v Violet F. 2011 NY Slip Op 07270 Decided on October 18, 2011 Appellate Division, First 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 October 18, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick, DeGrasse, JJ.
5729

[*1]In re Reynaldo M., Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Violet F., Respondent-Respondent.




Andrew J. Baer, New York, for appellant.
Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Janet
Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Annette Louise Guarino, Referee), entered on or about April 15, 2010, which, upon petitioner father's petition for visitation, granted the father contact with the subject child in the form of mail, letters and gifts, and provided that the child was free to initiate telephone contact with the father if she wished, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The record reflects that the father's attorney consented to the order, and "no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party" (Matter of Lah De W. [Takisha W.], 78 AD3d 523, 523 [2010]). The attorney was familiar with the matter, had represented the father on numerous prior occasions in the case, and had obtained an adjournment to ascertain the father's position on a proposed resolution of the application for visitation (see CPLR 2104; Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]).

Were we to consider the father's appeal, we would find that a fact-finding hearing on the petition was not required because the court had sufficient information to make an informed determination regarding the best interests of the child (see Skidelsky v Skidelsky, 279 AD2d 356 [2001]). The recommendation of the expert and the child's expressed desire not to visit with the father due to her fear of him were sufficient to warrant denial of the request for visitation.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 18, 2011 [*2]

CLERK