| Matter of Amir J.-L. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09794 [57 AD3d 669] |
| December 9, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| mIn the Matter of Amir J.-L., an Infant. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Phillip J.-L., Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth S. Natrella and SuzanneK. Colt of counsel), for respondent. Albino J. Testani, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from anorder of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated January 24, 2006, which,inter alia, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated September 23, 2005, made without ahearing, finding that he neglected the subject child, denied his application for visitation.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The father argues that the Family Court erred in denying his application for visitation withoutholding a hearing. Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court was not required to hold a fullevidentiary hearing where the court possessed "sufficient information to render an informeddetermination that [is] consistent with the child's best interests" (Matter of Davis v Davis, 265AD2d 552, 553 [1999]; see Matter of Homv Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]).The court made its determination after having considered an order of protection which prohibitedcontact with the subject child as part of the father's criminal sentence and the father's mental healthevaluation, which was admitted in evidence, and supported the court's conclusion that visitation wouldnot be in the child's best interest (see Matter of Curtis N., 288 AD2d 774 [2001]; Matter[*2]of Davis v Davis, 265 AD2d at 553).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo andChambers, JJ., concur.