| Rosenberg v Rosenberg |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01633 [60 AD3d 658] |
| March 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| 38—Aaron Rosenberg, Respondent, v Nancy A.Rosenberg, Also Known as Nancy Smith Rosenberg, Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric Dubinsky, Westbury, N.Y., for respondent. Daniel P. Moskowitz, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the mother appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), entered June 25, 2008, which, in effect, denied hermotion for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of interim visitation and directed certain visitationbetween the father and the parties' minor child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the mother's contention, a hearing is not necessary where, as here, the courtpossesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and providentdetermination as to the child's best interests (see Matter of Vanjak v Pesa, 26 AD3d 512 [2006]; Assini v Assini, 11 AD3d 417,418 [2004]; Matter of Smith v Molody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364 [2003]; Matter ofVangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]; Webster v Webster, 163 AD2d 178 [1990]).The Supreme Court examined the parents over several court appearances and [*2]conducted an in camera interview of the child to ascertain herwishes. These actions were sufficient to enable the Supreme Court to make an informed andprovident determination on the issue of interim visitation (see Matter of Vangas v Ladas,259 AD2d 755 [1999]). The mother's remaining contentions are proper issues for the retrialon visitation, directed by this Court on the prior appeal (see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 44 AD3d 1022 [2007]), but do notwarrant setting aside the interim schedule of visitation set by the Supreme Court.
The father's request for an award of counsel fees in connection with this appeal is notproperly made to this Court.
The father's remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Mastro, J.P., Skelos,Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.