| Matter of Horan v Framolaro |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10533 [46 AD3d 891] |
| December 26, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of John Horan, Respondent, v VeronicaFramolaro, Appellant. |
—[*1] Jill C. Stone, Bellmore, N.Y., for respondent. Todd D. Kadish, Brooklyn, N.Y., Law Guardian.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Seiden, Ct Atty Ref), dated June 5, 2006,which awarded sole custody of the parties' child to the father.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties' child, who was approximately 27 months old at the time of the custodydetermination, has resided with the father since she was a year old. An Administration forChildren's Services investigation report revealed that during the child's first year, while she wasresiding with the mother, there were separate "indicated" reports against the mother of inadequateguardianship and drug/alcohol misuse. The 24-year-old mother entered drug treatment halfwaythrough the approximately 16-month pendency of the father's custody proceeding, after she twicetested positive for cocaine and had remained clean for several months at the time of thedetermination. However, she had a history of marijuana abuse and dependency since the age of10 or 11, alcohol use and dependency since the age of 12, and a three-year history of crackcocaine dependency immediately prior to entering treatment.
Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court possessed adequate relevantinformation to enable it to make an informed and provident custody determination without [*2]conducting a hearing (see Matter of Malfetano v Parker, 7 AD3d 715 [2004]; Matterof Porter v Burgey, 266 AD2d 552 [1999]; see also Matter of Smith vMolody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364 [2003]). The record before the Family Court, given theexceptional circumstances of this case, presented a sound and substantial basis for the court'sdetermination that it was in the child's best interest for custody to be awarded to the father (cf. Matter of Bouie v Arvelo-Smith, 12AD3d 668 [2004]; see Matter ofMalfetano v Parker, 7 AD3d 715 [2004]; Matter of Porter v Burgey, 266 AD2d552 [1999]).
The mother's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or withoutmerit. Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Fisher and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.