| Matter of Donovan C. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06428 [65 AD3d 1041] |
| September 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Donovan C. Administration for Children'sServices, Petitioner; Kenneth C., Respondent; Delanda R., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Alexis C. Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner; Kenneth C., Respondent;Delanda R., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) |
—[*1] Pollak & Slepian, LLP, Bayside, N.Y. (Martin A. Pollak of counsel), for respondent (nobrief filed). Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel),attorney for the children.
In two related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the motherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated January 30, 2008,which denied the application of the Administration for Children's Services for a temporary orderof custody to the mother, and modified a visitation order of the same court dated March 24,2004, by, in effect, awarding temporary custody of the subject children to the father, anddirecting that the mother's visitation from Thursdays through Sundays be terminated and that allvisitation between the mother and the children be under the supervision of the Administration forChildren's Services.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, she was duly notified of the petition filed against thefather under article 10 of the Family Court Act (see Family Ct Act § 1035).Indeed, the mother was granted intervenor status and was represented by counsel at the hearing.The mother fully participated in the hearing, at which her counsel introduced documents intoevidence, vigorously cross-examined witnesses and called a rebuttal witness, raised objections,and gave a summation (see Matter ofDevonna O., 31 AD3d 766 [2006]).[*2]
Further, the Family Court was not required to have a fullhearing on permanent custody before rendering its determination on temporary custody andvisitation (see Matter of Amir J.-L.,57 AD3d 669 [2008]). The court was fully familiar with the parties, having presidedover their custody case since 2005 and possessed sufficient information to render an informedand provident temporary determination prior to the completion of a full hearing (see McAvoy v Hannigan, 41 AD3d791, 792 [2007]; Matter ofMelikishvili v Grigolava, 20 AD3d 569, 570 [2005]; Matter of Levande v Levande, 10AD3d 723, 724 [2004]; Matter ofMcCartha v Williams, 3 AD3d 750, 751 [2004]). Moreover, the Family Courtprovidently exercised it discretion in modifying the prior visitation order (see Matter of Frey v Ketcham, 57AD3d 543, 543-544 [2008]; Bobinski v Bobinski, 9 AD3d 441, 441-442 [2004]; Matter ofHermann v Chakurmanian, 243 AD2d 1003, 1004-1005 [1997]).
The parties' remaining contentions need not be reached in light of this determination. Skelos,J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.