| Matter of Feldman v Feldman |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09262 [79 AD3d 871] |
| December 14, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Sholem Feldman, Respondent, v Surie Feldman,Respondent. Susan Argento Ferlauto, Attorney for the Children, NonpartyAppellant. |
—[*1]
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the attorneyfor the children appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, OrangeCounty (Woods, J.), dated January 25, 2010, as awarded, without a hearing, certain visitation rights tothe father.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Generally, "[v]isitation should be decided after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the bestinterests of the child[ren]" (Matter of Rivera vAdministration for Children's Servs., 13 AD3d 636, 637 [2004]; see Matter of Johnson v Alaji, 74 AD3d1202 [2010]). However, it is not necessary to conduct such a hearing when the court alreadypossesses sufficient relevant information to render an informed determination in the child's best interest(see Matter of Weinschneider vWeinschneider, 73 AD3d 1194 [2010]).
Here, the parties were divorced in 2003 by a judgment which incorporated, but did not merge, theterms of a stipulation providing that the father would have visitation with the subject children. In 2009,the father commenced an enforcement proceeding in the Family Court, alleging that the mother wasinterfering with his visitation. On the date scheduled for trial, the parties informed the Family Court thatthey had come to an agreement regarding, inter alia, the father's visitation. The agreement was read intothe record and the parties waived their right to a hearing. The Family Court permitted the attorney forthe children to elicit testimony from the mother and the father. The Family Court had alreadyinterviewed the children in camera, and had a forensic evaluation conducted of the parties and thechildren.
Under these circumstances, the Family Court had adequate information before it to determine thatit was in the children's best interests to have visitation with the father as outlined in the parties'agreement (see Peluso v Kasun, 78 AD3d 950 [2010]; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673 [2008]; Matter ofJohnson v Alaji, 74 AD3d at 1202; Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]). Accordingly, contrary tothe contention of the attorney for the [*2]children, the Family Court didnot err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.