| Matter of Chaim N. (Angela N.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00921 [103 AD3d 728] |
| February 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Chaim N. Administration for Children'sServices,Respondent; Angela N., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matterof Maianna N. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Angela N.,Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Diana N.Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Angela N., Appellant, et al.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Daniel N. Administration forChildren's Services, Respondent; Angela N., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (ProceedingNo. 4.) In the Matter of Margarita N. Administration for Children's Services,Respondent; Angela N., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No.5.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Diana Lawless ofcounsel), for respondent (no brief filed). Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Selene D'Alessio of [*2]counsel), attorney for the children.
In five related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Danoff, J.), datedFebruary 29, 2012, which, without a hearing, in effect, granted the motion of the attorneyfor the children to suspend her visitation with the subject children to the extent oftemporarily suspending her visitation with the children pending a hearing.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother contends that the Family Court erred in temporarily suspending hervisitation with the children without a hearing. Generally, modifications to visitationshould only be made after a hearing to determine the best interests of the child (see Matter of Ciara B. [EdwardT.-Alba B.], 96 AD3d 833 [2012]; Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673 [2008];Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755 [1999]). A hearing is not necessary,however, "where the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to makean informed and provident determination as to the child's best interest" (Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6AD3d 536, 536 [2004]; see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d at 673;Matter of Smith v Molody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364, 364-365 [2003]).
Here, the Family Court was fully familiar with the relevant facts regarding themother and the children from past proceedings. In addition, it was the position of theattorney for the children that visitation should be suspended. Under these circumstances,the Family Court possessed sufficient information to render, without a hearing, aninformed determination regarding visitation consistent with the best interests of thechildren (see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d at 673-674; Matter ofHom v Zullo, 6 AD3d at 536). Rivera, J.P., Lott, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.