| Matter of McLean v Simpson |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02395 [82 AD3d 1101] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jermaine A. McLean,Appellant, v Sharalee Kaye Simpson, Respondent. |
—[*1] Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y., for respondent. Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated January 8, 2010, which,without a hearing, denied the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"[T]he determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the hearing court basedupon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks asubstantial basis in the record" (Matterof Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366 [2004] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Morales v Bruno, 29AD3d 1001 [2006]; Matter of Marcial v Sullivan, 296 AD2d 551 [2002]; seealso Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 [1982]; Koppenhoefer vKoppenhoefer, 159 AD2d 113, 116 [1990]).
"Absent exceptional circumstances, some form of visitation with the noncustodial parent isalways appropriate" (Matter of Franklinv Richey, 57 AD3d 663, 664 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Grisanti v Grisanti, 4AD3d 471, 473 [2004]; Matter of Bradley v Wright, 260 AD2d 477 [1999]). "Whileit is true that a parent's incarceration does not, by itself, render visitation inappropriate, visitationwill be denied where there is substantial evidence that such visitation would be detrimental to thechild" (Matter of Morales v Bruno, 29 AD3d at 1001 [citations omitted]; see Matterof Marcial v Sullivan, 296 AD2d 551 [2002]).
"Generally, visitation should be determined after a full evidentiary hearing to determine thebest interests of the child. A hearing is not necessary, however, where the court possessesadequate relevant information to make an informed determination of the child's best interest"(Matter of Franklin v Richey, 57 AD3d at 665 [internal quotation marks and citationsomitted]; see Rosenberg vRosenberg, 60 AD3d 658 [2009]; Matter of Potente v Wasilewski, 51 AD3d 675, 676 [2008];Matter of Marcial v Sullivan, 296 AD2d 551 [2002]).[*2]
Here, there is a substantial basis in the record to support afinding that visitation with the father would not be in the child's best interests at this time (seeMatter of Franklin v Richey, 57 AD3d at 665; Potente v Wasilewski, 51 AD3d at676; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda,51 AD3d 673, 673-674 [2008]; Matter of Rodriquez v Van Putten, 309 AD2d 807[2003]; Matter of Marcial v Sullivan, 296 AD2d 551 [2002]; see also Matter of Wispe v Leandry, 63AD3d 853, 854 [2009]).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Roman,JJ., concur.