Roberta GG. v. Leon HH.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07006,952 N.Y.S.2d 778,99 A.D.3d 1057
• Parties: In the Matter of ROBERTA GG., Appellant, v. LEON HH., Respondent. (And Another Related Proceeding).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

99 A.D.3d 1057
952 N.Y.S.2d 778
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07006

In the Matter of ROBERTA GG., Appellant,
v.
LEON HH., Respondent.
(And Another Related Proceeding).

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

Oct. 18, 2012.

Alexander W. Bloomstein, Hillsdale, for appellant.

[952 N.Y.S.2d 779]

Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for respondent.

Ira Halfond, Craryville, attorney for the child.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, LAHTINEN, KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.

ROSE, J.

[99 A.D.3d 1057]Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), entered April 13, 2011, which, among other things, dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 6, for custody of the parties' child.

Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent (hereinafter the father) are the unmarried parents of a son born in 1998. When the parties separated in 2007, the child resided with the mother and spent visitation time with the father. During an exchange of the child in 2010, an incident occurred that led the mother to file family offense and custody petitions. The father then cross-petitioned for custody. At a preliminary appearance, a temporary order was issued at the request of the attorney for the child prohibiting the mother's live-in boyfriend from being [99 A.D.3d 1058]alone with the child. Later, after speaking with the child in camera and conducting a fact-finding hearing, Family Court directed that the parties have joint legal custody and awarded residential custody to the father with liberal visitation pursuant to an established schedule to the mother. The mother appeals and we affirm.

Although the mother argues that the in camera interview with the child was improper because it occurred prior to the fact-finding hearing, it was held on the same date and we are satisfied by our review that, contrary to the mother's speculation, it served to corroborate evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing ( see e.g. Matter of Bjork v. Bjork, 58 A.D.3d 951, 954, 871 N.Y.S.2d 743 [2009],lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 708, 881 N.Y.S.2d 17, 908 N.E.2d 925 [2009];Matter of Gorham v. Gorham, 56 A.D.3d 985, 987, 868 N.Y.S.2d 343 [2008] ). Further, we find no basis for the mother's request to us that we now breach the child's right to confidentiality by releasing the transcript ( see e.g. Matter of Susan LL. v. Victor LL., 88 A.D.3d 1116, 1119 n. 4, 931 N.Y.S.2d 189 [2011];Matter of Sellen v. Wright, 229 A.D.2d 680, 681–682, 645 N.Y.S.2d 346 [1996] ).

The mother also contends—for the first time on appeal—that Family Court improperly limited...