| Matter of Patterson v Patterson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00965 [92 AD3d 682] |
| February 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Thab D. Patterson, Appellant, v StacyPatterson, Respondent. |
—[*1] Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y (Sena Kim-Reuter and Janet Neustaetter of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated November 29, 2010, which, ineffect, denied his motion for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of visitation and directed onlylimited visitation between the parties' minor child and him.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, a hearing is not necessary where, as here, the FamilyCourt possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and providentdetermination as to the subject child's best interests (see Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 60 AD3d 658 [2009]; Matter of Vanjak v Pesa, 26 AD3d512 [2006]; Assini v Assini, 11AD3d 417, 418 [2004]; Matter of Smith v Molody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364 [2003];Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]; Webster v Webster, 163 AD2d178 [1990]). The Family Court examined the parents over several court appearances, andconducted an in camera interview of the child to ascertain his wishes. These proceedings weresufficient to enable the Family Court to make an informed and provident determination on theissue of visitation (see Rosenberg vRosenberg, 60 AD3d 658 [2009]; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755[1999]), and there is no basis to overturn the Family Court's determination. Florio, J.P.,Chambers, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.