| Matter of Lando v Lando |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09794 [79 AD3d 1796] |
| December 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Timothy E. Lando, Jr., Appellant, v Jessica J.Lando, Respondent. |
—[*1] Germain & Germain, LLP, Syracuse (Galen F. Haab of counsel), for respondent-respondent. Pamela A. Munson, Attorney for the Children, Fulton, for Timothy E.L., III and CaitlynM.L.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County (Bobette J. Morin, R.), enteredSeptember 24, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order denied thepetition for visitation.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner father, who is incarcerated, appeals from an order denying hispetition seeking visitation with the parties' children. We conclude that Family Court properlydetermined, following a hearing, that it was in the best interests of the children to deny the fathervisitation (see generally Matter of Lonobile v Betkowski, 295 AD2d 994 [2002];Matter of Mills v Sweeting, 278 AD2d 943 [2000]). The court noted that the parties' sonhas psychiatric diagnoses and properly credited the testimony of his treating therapist thatvisitation with the father in prison would be detrimental to the emotional and psychologicalwelfare of the son (see Matter of FrankP. v Judith S., 34 AD3d 1324 [2006]; Matter of Medina v Kast, 298 AD2d 956[2002]; Lonobile, 295 AD2d 994 [2002]). Contrary to the father's contention, the courtproperly determined, without the benefit of psychological evidence, that the parties' daughtershould be allowed to grow and develop before any further in-person visitation with the father (see Matter of McCullough v Brown, 21AD3d 1349 [2005]). "[N]either the parties nor the [Attorney for the Children] requested anypsychological examinations, and it cannot be said that the court should have sua sponte orderedthe examinations where, as here, there otherwise was sufficient testimony from the parties for thecourt to resolve the [matter]" (Matter of Tracy v Tracy, 309 AD2d 1252, 1253 [2003]).
We reject the further contention of the father that he received ineffective assistance ofcounsel at the hearing (see generallyMatter of Derrick C., 52 AD3d 1325, 1326 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 705[2008]). "It is not the role of this Court to second-guess the attorney's tactics or trial strategy" (Matter of [*2]Katherine D. v Lawrence D., 32 AD3d 1350, 1351-1352[2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 717 [2006]) and, "[b]ased on our review of the record, weconclude that [the father] received meaningful representation" (id. at 1352).Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.