Opinion
No. CAF 06-01656.
June 8, 2007.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Judith S. Claire, J.), entered April 21, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted sole custody of the parties' child to petitioner.
HEODORE W. STENUF, MINOA, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: We reject the contention of respondent, who is incarcerated, that Family Court erred in granting petitioner sole custody of the parties' child without conducting a hearing. While generally custody should not be awarded without an evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the child, "[n]o hearing is required upon a custody petition [where, as here,] the court possesses sufficient information to make a comprehensive assessment of the best interest of the child" ( Matter of Van Orman v Van Orman, 19 AD3d 1167, 1168; see Matter of Woodruff v Adside, 26 AD3d 866). "As a result of his incarceration, respondent was incapable of fulfilling the obligations of a custodial parent" ( Van Orman, 19 AD3d at 1168; see Woodruff, 26 AD3d 866), and we conclude that the court properly granted petitioner custody of the child without conducting a hearing ( see Van Orman, 19 AD3d at 1168).