| Matter of Perez v Sepulveda |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02612 [60 AD3d 1072] |
| March 31, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Benjamin Perez, Respondent, v GrisselSepulveda, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robin Stone Einbinder, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom (1) an order of protection of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated April15, 2008, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated April 15, 2008, which, without a hearing,granted that branch of the father's motion which was to suspend visitation between her and thechild.
Ordered that the appeal from the order of protection is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The order of protection expired by its own terms on June 27, 2008. Since the rights of theparties will not be directly affected by a determination as to the propriety of the order ofprotection, the appeal from that order has been rendered academic (see Matter ofCooper-Winfield v Gary, 9 AD3d 366 [2004]; Matter of Levande v Levande, 308AD2d 450, 451 [2003]; Matter of Greene v Greene, 216 AD2d 393 [1995]). Moreover,the issuance of the order of protection in this case did not constitute a permanent and significantstigma which might indirectly affect the mother's status in potential future proceedings (seeMatter of Cooper-Winfield v Gary, 9 AD3d at 366-367; Matter of Levande v Levande,308 AD2d at 451; [*2]Matter of McClure v McClure,176 AD2d 325, 326 [1991]; cf. Matter of Malfetano v Parker, 7 AD3d 715 [2004];Matter of Cutrone v Cutrone, 225 AD2d 767, 768 [1996]).
Even if the Family Court erred in considering the transcript of the tape made by the father ofthe mother's conversation with the child, which the father submitted in support of his application,inter alia, to suspend the mother's visitation (see Matter of Cameron C., 283 AD2d 946,947 [2001]; Matter of Jaeger v Jaeger, 207 AD2d 448, 449 [1994]; Matter of Berk vBerk, 70 AD2d 943 [1979]), the Family Court possessed sufficient information to render,without a hearing, an informed visitation determination consistent with the best interests of thechild (see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673, 673-674 [2008]; Matter ofHom v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]) without considering the recorded conversation (seeMatter of Jaeger v Jaeger, 207 AD2d at 449; Janecka v Franklin, 131 AD2d 436,437 [1987]; Matter of Berk v Berk, 70 AD2d at 943). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Covello andEng, JJ., concur.