| Matter of Perez v Sepulveda |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04353 [51 AD3d 673] |
| May 6, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Benjamin Perez, Respondent, v GrisselSepulveda, Appellant. Daniel E. Lubetsky, Nonparty Respondent. |
—[*1] Robin Stone Einbinder, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent. Daniel E. Lubetsky, Jamaica, N.Y., nonparty respondent pro se.
In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated November22, 2006, which granted the motion of the attorney for the child to compel her to submit to apsychiatric evaluation and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same courtdated February 9, 2007, as, without a hearing, granted the motion of the attorney for the child tosuspend her visitation with the child to the extent of directing that such visitation be supervisedpending the completion of the psychiatric evaluation.
Ordered that the order dated November 22, 2006 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements;and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated February 9, 2007 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withoutcosts or disbursements.
The mother contends that the Family Court erred in modifying her visitation without ahearing. In general, an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding a modification of visitation (see Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d536 [2004]; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]). "However, a [*2]hearing will not be necessary where the court possesses adequaterelevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to thechild's best interest" (Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d at 536; see Matter of Smith vMolody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364 [2003]).
Here, the Family Court was fully familiar with the relevant background facts regarding theparties and the child from several past proceedings. In addition, the court conducted an in camerainterview with the child. Moreover, it was the position of the attorney for the child, who had beeninvolved in the case for several years, that visitation be either suspended or supervised pendingthe completion of the psychiatric evaluation. Under the circumstances, the Family Courtpossessed sufficient information to render, without a hearing, an informed visitationdetermination consistent with the best interests of the child (see Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]; Matter ofVangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo andLeventhal, JJ., concur.