Opinion
2002-05753
Submitted April 4, 2003.
July 28, 2003.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.H.O.), entered June 20, 2002, as, in effect, modified a prior order of the same court (Blass, J.), dated March 18, 2002, so as to grant the mother unsupervised visitation with the parties' child.
Reynolds, Caronia, Gianelli Hagney, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (James F. Hagney of counsel), for appellant.
Julia Molody-Smith, East Patchogue, N.Y., respondent pro se.
Mary Beth Daniels, Lake Ronkonkoma, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion by modifying its prior order so as to grant the mother unsupervised visitation with the parties' child. Contrary to the father's contention, a hearing is not necessary where, as here, the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the child's best interest (see Matter of Porter v. Burgey, 266 A.D.2d 552, 553; Webster v. Webster, 163 A.D.2d 178, 179). In a situation such as this, where the extensive evidence before the court showed that the mother and daughter had a loving, appropriate relationship, and where there were no extraordinary circumstances, it was in the child's best interest to enjoy unrestricted visitation with her mother (see Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170, 175; Matter of Schack v. Schack, 98 A.D.2d 802; Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, 193). Moreover, under the circumstances, requiring that visitation be supervised would have violated the mother's right to "reasonable access and visitation" (Matter of Schack v. Schack, supra).
SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.