Cardona v. Vantassel

• Decision Date: 27 June 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05168,96 A.D.3d 1052,946 N.Y.S.2d 876
• Parties: In the Matter of Kenneth CARDONA, appellant, v. Jean L. VANTASSEL, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

96 A.D.3d 1052

946 N.Y.S.2d 876

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05168

In the Matter of Kenneth CARDONA, appellant,

v.Jean L. VANTASSEL, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 27, 2012.

Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles S. Sherman, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.

Diane B. Groom, Central Islip, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Boggio, Ct.Atty.Ref.), datedJune 17, 2011, which, without a hearing, dismissed 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 based upon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of McLean v. Simpson, 82 A.D.3d 1101, 1101, 918 N.Y.S.2d 896, quoting Matter of Kachelhofer v. Wasiak, 10 A.D.3d 366, 366, 780 N.Y.S.2d 290 [citations omitted]; see Matter of Smith v. Smith, 92 A.D.3d 791, 793, 938 N.Y.S.2d 601;Matter of Franklin v. Richey, 57 A.D.3d 663, 665, 869 N.Y.S.2d 187). “ ‘Absent exceptional circumstances, some form of visitation with the noncustodial parent is always appropriate’ ” (Matter of Franklin v. Richey, 57 A.D.3d at 664, 869 N.Y.S.2d 187, quoting Matter of McFarland v. Smith, 53 A.D.3d 500, 500, 859 N.Y.S.2d 567 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170, 175, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377). “While a parent's incarceration, standing alone, does not make visitation inappropriate” (Matter of Marcial v. Sullivan, 296 A.D.2d 551, 551, 745 N.Y.S.2d 911;see Matter of Davis v. Davis, 232 A.D.2d 773, 648 N.Y.S.2d 742;Matter of Wise v. Del Toro, 122 A.D.2d 714, 714–715, 505 N.Y.S.2d 880), “ ‘visitation will be denied where there is substantial evidence that such visitation would be detrimental to the child’ ” (Matter of Smith v. Smith, 92 A.D.3d at 792, 938 N.Y.S.2d 601, quoting Matter of Morales v. Bruno, 29 A.D.3d 1001, 1001, 816 N.Y.S.2d 536;see Matter of McLean v. Simpson, 82 A.D.3d at 1101, 918 N.Y.S.2d 896;Matter of Marcial v. Sullivan, 296 A.D.2d at 551, 745 N.Y.S.2d 911).

“Generally, visitation should be decided after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the children. A hearing is not necessary, however, where the court possesses adequate relevant information to make an informed determination of the children's best interests” (Matter of Johnson v. Alaji, 74 A.D.3d 1202, 1203, 902 N.Y.S.2d 410 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ).

Here, there is a substantial basis in the record to support a finding that visitation with the father would not be in the child's best interests ( see Matter of McLean v. Simpson, 82 A.D.3d at 1102, 918 N.Y.S.2d 896;Matter of Butler v. Ewers, 78 A.D.3d 1667, 910 N.Y.S.2d 831;Matter of Johnson v....