| Matter of Rhodie v Nathan |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08018 [67 AD3d 687] |
| November 4, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Adam Rhodie, Appellant, v CarolynNathan et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Dawn M. Shammas, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent Carolyn Nathan. Jeremiah Quinlan, Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y. (Daniel Gartenstein of counsel), forrespondent New York Foundling Hospital. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and Jane L.Gordon of counsel), for respondent Administration for Children's Services. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara Steckler and Susan Clement of counsel), attorneyfor the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Lerner, Ct. Atty. Ref.), datedJuly 30, 2008, as, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for custody of the subject child andfailed to award him visitation.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Under the circumstances of this case, the denial of the father's application for forensicevaluations in connection with his custody petition was a provident exercise of discretion. TheFamily Court possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision regarding custodyconsistent with the subject child's best interests (see Matter of Johnson v Williams, 59 AD3d 445 [2009]; Matter of B.G. v A.M.O., 57 AD3d246, 247 [2008]; Matter ofSalamone-Finchum v McDevitt, 28 AD3d 670, 671 [2006]; Matter of Fallon v Fallon, 4 AD3d426, 427 [2004]; Kaplansky v Kaplansky, 212 AD2d 667, 668 [1995]).
The Family Court delegated to the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS)the authority to determine whether and when the father was entitled to visitation. ACSdetermined that based on certain comments made by the father during the custody hearing, hewas not entitled to any [*2]visitation. The Family Court'sdelegation to ACS was improper, as "[t]he determination of visitation is entrusted to the courtbased upon the best interests of the children" (Matter of Juliane M., 23 AD3d 473 [2005]; see Matter ofRueckert v Reilly, 282 AD2d 608, 609 [2001]; Matter of Fisk v Fisk, 274 AD2d691, 693 [2000]). We decline, however, to disturb the determination made here, as the recordsupports the conclusion that visitation by the father would not be in the subject child's bestinterests (see Matter of Vasquez vMedina, 49 AD3d 547 [2008]; Matter of Juliane M., 23 AD3d at 473).
The father's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (cf. Dana-Sitzer v Sitzer, 48 AD3d354 [2008]; Matter of Rudy vMazzetti, 5 AD3d 777, 778 [2004]) and, in any event, is without merit. Skelos, J.P.,Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.