| Matter of Weinschneider v Weinschneider |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04603 [73 AD3d 1194] |
| May 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Devorah Weinschneider,Respondent-Appellant, v David Weinschneider,Appellant-Respondent. |
—[*1] Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, thefather appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, KingsCounty (Krauss, J.), dated January 13, 2009, as, without a hearing, granted the mother's petitionto modify a prior order of custody and visitation dated April 10, 2008, to the extent of limitinghis visitation with the parties' children Aaron and Batsheva to certain locations, and set aschedule for future self-executing fines against the father for any possible violations of thecourt's order relating to the mother's visitation with the parties' child Yael, and the mothercross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as failed to imposesanctions upon the father.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as set a schedule for future self-executingfines against the father for any possible violations of the court's order relating to the mother'svisitation with the parties' child Yael is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements;and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed on the appeal and insofar ascross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order as relates to the father's compliance with visitationrequirements involving the parties' child Yael has been rendered academic because Yael is nowover the age of 18 and, thus, is no longer a minor subject to an order directing visitation (seeMatter of Jeffers v Hicks, 67 AD3d 800, 801 [2009]).
The father contends that the Family Court erred in granting the mother's petition to modify aprior custody and visitation order to the extent of limiting his visitation with the parties' childrenAaron and Batsheva without a hearing. Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessary regardinga modification of visitation (see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673 [2008];Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]). [*2]However, a hearing is not necessary where the court possessesadequate relevant information to make an informed determination of the children's best interests(see Matter of Franklin v Richey, 57 AD3d 663, 665 [2008]; Matter of Perez vSepulveda, 51 AD3d at 673; Matter of Glenn v Glenn, 262 AD2d 885, 887 [1999]).Here, the Family Court was fully familiar with the relevant facts regarding the parents and theirchildren so as to make an informed determination on the children's best interests (see Matterof Jeffers v Hicks, 67 AD3d at 801; Matter of Franklin v Richey, 57 AD3d at 665;Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d at 673; Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3dat 536). Furthermore, the Family Court's determination as to visitation was not an improvidentexercise of discretion (see Matter of Jeffers v Hicks, 67 AD3d at 801; Zafran vZafran, 28 AD3d 753, 755 [2006]; Zafran v Zafran, 306 AD2d 468, 470 [2003];Matter of Frances K. v Christopher T., 220 AD2d 422, 423 [1995]).
The father's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court, without merit, oracademic in light of our determination.
The mother's contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Balkin and Chambers,JJ., concur.