| Matter of Ciara B. (Edward T.—Alba B.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04739 [96 AD3d 833] |
| June 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Ciara B. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Edward T., Appellant; Alba B., Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow andLisa A. Giunta of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Lewis S. Calderon, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Claire V. Merkine of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order ofthe Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), dated April 12, 2011, which, without ahearing, in effect, modified an interim visitation order of the same court dated December 7, 2009,so as to direct that the father have only supervised visitation with the subject child.
Ordered that the order dated April 12, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"In adjudicating custody and visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered isthe best interests of the child" (Matter ofAwan v Awan, 63 AD3d 733, 734 [2009]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d167, 171 [1982]). "Supervised visitation is appropriately required only where it is established thatunsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child" (Matter of Bullinger v Costa, 63 AD3d 735, 735-736 [2009]; see Matter of Powell v Blumenthal, 35AD3d 615, 616 [2006]). Generally, visitation should be determined after a full evidentiaryhearing to determine the best interests of the child (see Matter of James v Jeffries, 90 AD3d 929 [2011]; Matter of Riemma v Cascone, 74AD3d 1082 [2010]; Matter ofJeffers v Hicks, 67 AD3d 800, 801 [2009]). "[A] hearing will not be necessary wherethe court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and providentdetermination as to the child's best interest" (Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536, 536 [2004]; see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51AD3d 673 [2008]; Matter ofWilliams v O'Toole, 4 AD3d 371 [2004]).
Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion inmodifying, without a hearing, an interim visitation order so as to direct that the father [*2]have only supervised visitation with the subject child (see Matter of Peluso v Kasun, 78AD3d 950, 951 [2010]). Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court possessedadequate relevant information to determine that the modification of the interim visitation orderwas consistent with the best interests of the child (id. at 951).
We note that the order appealed from did not modify a final order of visitation and that therecord indicates that the Family Court scheduled a hearing on the issue of the father's visitation.
To the extent that the father raises the issue of custody, that issue is not properly before thisCourt. Balkin, J.P., Eng, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.