| Matter of Attallah N. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06434 [65 AD3d 1047] |
| September 8, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Attallah N. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Melvin Shamm L., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matterof Shabazz N. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Melvin Shamm L.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Sh'Kenya N. Administrationfor Children's Services, Respondent; Melvin Shamm L., Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Leroy N. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Melvin Shamm L., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matterof Shalaun N. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Melvin Shamm L., Appellant,et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 5.) In the Matter of Tyrone N. Administration for Children'sServices, Respondent; Melvin Shamm L., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 6.) Inthe Matter of Kalek N. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Melvin Shamm L.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 7.) In the Matter of Shamika N. Administrationfor Children's Services, Respondent; Melvin Shamm L., Appellant, et al., Respondent.(Proceeding No. 8.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner and StephenJ. McGrath of counsel), for respondent. Brian Zimmerman, Brooklyn, N.Y., attorney for the children Shabazz N., Tyrone N., andKalek N. Elizabeth J. Fee, New York, N.Y., attorney for the children Sh'Kenya N., Shalaun N., andShamika N.
In related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals (1),as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.),dated January 14, 2008, as denied his application for a permanency hearing at which he couldpresent testimony and cross-examine witnesses, and denied his motion for an order awardinghim visitation with his daughters Shalaun N., Shamika N., and Sh'Kenya N., (2) an order of thesame court, also dated January 14, 2008, which extended the placement of Shalaun N., ShamikaN., and Sh'Kenya N., and approved a permanency plan for those children, (3) an order of thesame court, also dated January 14, 2008, which extended the placement of Leroy N. and TyroneN., and approved a permanency plan for those children, and (4) an order of the same court, alsodated January 14, 2008, which extended the placement of Shabazz N. and Kalek N., andapproved a permanency plan for those children.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the first order dated January 14, 2008 as denied thefather's application for a permanency hearing at which he could present testimony andcross-examine witnesses, and the appeals from the three additional orders dated January 14,2008 are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of two subsequentorders of the Family Court, Kings County, dated January 9, 2009 and March 24, 2009,respectively; and it is further,
Ordered that the first order dated January 14, 2008, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, withoutcosts or disbursements.
The father contends that the Family Court erred in denying his application to conduct apermanency hearing on January 14, 2008 at which he could present testimony and cross-examinewitnesses, and in issuing three additional orders extending the placement of his seven childrenand approving permanency plans for them absent such a hearing. However, while these appealswere pending the Family Court conducted a permanency hearing on January 9, 2009 whichresulted in a new permanency hearing order for the children. A subsequent motion by the fatherto vacate the permanency hearing order dated January 9, 2009 was denied by the Family Court inan order dated March 24, 2009. [*2]Under these circumstances,the father's appeals from so much of the January 14, 2008 order as denied his application for apermanency hearing at which he could present testimony and cross-examine witnesses, and fromthe additional orders issued on that date, have been rendered academic (see Matter of Angelo O., 41 AD3d605 [2007]; Matter of LecknoldM., 33 AD3d 616 [2006]).
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion indenying, without a hearing, his motion for an order awarding him visitation with his threedaughters. The court was not required to hold a hearing on the father's motion for visitationbecause it was fully familiar with the relevant background facts from several prior proceedings,and possessed sufficient information to render an informed determination consistent with thebest interests of the children (see Matterof Amir J.-L., 57 AD3d 669 [2008]; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673 [2008]; Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d536 [2004]). Furthermore, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court'sdetermination that the resumption of visitation between the father and his daughters would not bein the children's best interests (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Matter of Martin v Martin, 15 AD3d662 [2005]; see also Matter ofAmir J.-L., 57 AD3d 669 [2008]). The three children, who have been in pre-adoptivehomes since 2000, oppose visitation, and their therapist has indicated that compelled visitationwould be harmful to their emotional well being. Fisher, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Hall, JJ.,concur.