| Matter of Peluso v Kasun |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08579 [78 AD3d 950] |
| November 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Edward Daniel Peluso,Appellant, v Theresa K. Kasun, Respondent. |
—[*1] Peter Wilner, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent. Daniel E. Lubetsky, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, aslimited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Ebrahimoff,Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated July 30, 2009, as, without a hearing, granted the mother's petition to modifya prior order of visitation of the same court dated July 25, 2006, so as to direct that the fatherhave only therapeutic supervised visitation.
Ordered that the order dated July 30, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"In general, an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding modification of visitation" (Matter of Flangos v Flangos, 70 AD3d691, 692 [2010], quoting Matter ofPerez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673, 673 [2008]). "However, a hearing will not benecessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make aninformed and provident determination as to the child[ren's] best interest" (Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d536 [2004]). Here, the father waived his right to a hearing. The Family Court offered twiceto hold a hearing on the issue of visitation, and the father's counsel indicated that the father didnot want a hearing. In any event, the Family Court possessed adequate relevant information toenable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the children's best interest. TheFamily Court had presided over the parties' extensive court appearances since approximately2006, and was intimately familiar with their situation. Further, the Family Court conducted an incamera interview with the children.
The father's remaining contention is without merit. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Hall,JJ., concur.