| Bibas v Bibas |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04176 [62 AD3d 924] |
| May 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Dafna Bibas, Respondent, v Charles Bibas,Appellant. |
—[*1] Dafna Ziss, also known as Dafna Bibas, New Hyde Park, N.Y., respondent pro se. Barbara H. Kopman, Hicksville, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered July 10,2007, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Nassau County (Stack, J.), entered November 9, 2007, as granted that branch of the mother'smotion which was, inter alia, for therapeutic visitation between the father and the children to theextent of appointing a therapist to conduct supervised therapeutic visitation on a temporary basisto facilitate the court in rendering its final determination of visitation.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The allegations and exhibits submitted in support of the mother's motion, inter alia, fortherapeutic visitation between the father and the children, which were consistent with theposition taken by the attorney for the children, were adequate to enable the Supreme Court tomake an informed determination regarding the appropriateness of placing interim restrictions onthe father's visitation rights pending a final determination (see Matter of Vanjak v Pesa, 26 AD3d 512, 513 [2006]). Where, ashere, the court possessed adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informeddetermination with respect to the best interests of the children, an evidentiary hearing, completewith expert testimony, sworn witnesses, and an in camera interview of the children, is notnecessary to render a temporary custody determination (see McAvoy v Hannigan, 41 AD3d 791, 792 [2007]; Assini v Assini, 11 AD3d 417,418 [2004]; Matter of Levande vLevande, 10 AD3d 723 [2004]).
Here, there was a sound and substantial basis for the court's determination to temporarilyorder supervised therapeutic visitation (see Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d 774 [2009]; see also Zafran v Zafran, 28 AD3d753 [2006]) and this arrangement would not deprive the father of meaningful access to thechildren (see e.g. Lightbourne v Lightbourne, 179 AD2d 562 [1992]).
This father's remaining contentions either concern matter dehors the record which cannot bereviewed (see generally R & J Yorek, Inc. v MCL Constr., 173 AD2d 531 [1991]) or arewithout merit. Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.