| Matter of Jeffers v Hicks |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08229 [67 AD3d 800] |
| November 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Prudence Jeffers, Appellant, v AnthonyHicks, Respondent. |
—[*1] Steven C. Bernstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), attorney for thechildren.
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated October 3, 2008, which, without ahearing, in effect, modified a prior order of custody and visitation by limiting her visitation withthe parties' two children, Tonisha and Omar, to certain telephone contact.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as relates to Tonisha is dismissed asacademic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order as relates to Tonisha has been rendered academicbecause Tonisha is now over the age of 18 and, thus, no longer is a minor subject to an orderdirecting visitation (see Family Ct Act § 119 [c]; 651; see also Matter of Lozada v Pinto, 7AD3d 801 [2004]).
Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding a modification of visitation (see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51AD3d 673, 673 [2008]; Matter ofHom v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]). Here, [*2]however,because the Family Court "possesse[d] adequate relevant information to enable it to make aninformed and provident determination as to [Omar's] best interest," a hearing on the issue of amodification of the prior visitation order was unnecessary (Matter of Perez v Sepulveda,51 AD3d at 673). The Family Court was fully familiar with relevant facts regarding theparents and Omar considering, inter alia, the numerous court dates and the relationship betweenthe parties (see Matter of Attallah N.,65 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2009]; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d at 673).Furthermore, the court's determination as to visitation was not an improvident exercise ofdiscretion. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.