| Matter of Dylan Mc. (Michelle M. Mc.) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02753 [105 AD3d 1049] |
| April 24, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Dylan Mc. Nassau County Department ofSocial Services et al., Respondents; Michelle M. Mc., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) Inthe Matter of Connor Mc. Nassau County Department of Social Services et al.,Respondents; Michelle M. Mc., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of MichaelW., Respondent, v Michelle M. Mc., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (ProceedingNo. 3.) |
—[*1] John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert F. Van der Waag ofcounsel), for respondent Nassau County Department of Social Services. Bruce J. Cohen, Jericho, N.Y., for petitioner-respondent Michael W. Eileen T. Stapleton, Levittown, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10,and a related child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Greenberg, J.), dated April13, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the father's petition for custody of the subjectchildren and awarded her only therapeutic supervised visitation and any other supervisedvisitation agreed upon by the parties.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not improperly delegate itsauthority to determine visitation issues in the best interests of the children to thecourt-appointed forensic evaluator (cf. Matter of Balgley v Cohen, 73 AD3d 1038, 1038[2010]; Matter ofSinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d 774, 776 [2009]; Matter of Held v Gomez, 35AD3d 608, 608 [2006]; Matter of Grisanti v Grisanti, 4 AD3d 471, 474-475[2004]; Johnson v Johnson, 303 AD2d 641, 642 [2003]), or to either or both ofthe parents (cf. Matter of Taylorv Jackson, 95 AD3d 1604, 1605 [2012]; Matter of Taylor v Fry, 63 AD3d 1217, 1219 [2009]; Matter of William BB. v SusanDD., 31 AD3d 907, 908 [2006]).[*2]
The Family Court did not improvidently exerciseits discretion in denying the mother's counsel's request to be relieved eight months afterthe combined dispositional and custody hearing had begun (see Matter of Khan v Dolly, 39AD3d 649, 650 [2007]; Cashdan v Cashdan, 243 AD2d 598, 598 [1997]).There is no evidence that the mother's conduct rendered it unreasonably difficult forcounsel "to carry out employment effectively" (Green v Gasparini, 24 AD3d 505, 506 [2005]; see generally Walker v MountVernon Hosp., 5 AD3d 590, 590 [2004]).
The mother's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit. Viewed intotality, the record shows that the mother received meaningful representation (see Matter of Marra vHernandez, 102 AD3d 699, 700 [2013]; Matter of Rodriguez v Suarez, 93 AD3d 730, 730 [2012];Matter of Larrier vWilliams, 84 AD3d 805, 806 [2011]). The mother failed to show that any ofcounsel's alleged deficiencies constituted anything other than a legitimate, albeitunsuccessful, trial strategy (see Matter of Larrier v Williams, 84 AD3d at 806; Matter of Lewis v Cross, 80AD3d 835, 837 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.