Opinion
Submitted June 16, 2000
August 21, 2000.
In a proceeding to modify a visitation order, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), entered April 27, 1999, which, inter alia, after a hearing, limited his visitation with the parties' son to two supervised visits per month.
Lansner Kubitschek, New York, N.Y. (Carolyn A. Kubitschek and David J. Lansner of counsel Joanne Sirotkin on the brief), for appellant.
Bloom Bloom, P.C., New Windsor, N.Y. (Peter E. Bloom of counsel), for respondent.
Ross Solomon, New Windsor, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Issues of the credibility of witnesses are properly determined by the hearing court, and will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Matter of Greenberg v. Greenberg, 226 A.D.2d 463; Matter of Pabon v. Martinez, 241 A.D.2d 550; Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167; Santoro v. Santoro, 224 A.D.2d 510, 511; Klat v. Klat, 176 A.D.2d 922). The record supports the determination of the Family Court that the father and his friends conspired to arrange for the parties' 11-year-old son to leave the mother's home in New York and go to a location near the father in New Jersey, some 100 miles away.
The father's contention that reversal is required because of the admission into evidence of a hearsay report by a police officer who interviewed the parties' son upon the son's return from New Jersey is without merit. The Family Court did not rely on that report in reaching its determination, which was amply supported by the credible evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as by the in camera interview with the son (see, e.g., Matter of Liza C. v. Noel C., 207 A.D.2d 974; see also, Matter of Jelenic v. Jelenic, 262 A.D.2d 676; Matter of Rush v. Rush, 201 A.D.2d 836; Matter of Karen PP. V Clyde QQ., 197 A.D.2d 753).
In view of the exceptional circumstances created by the father inciting the son to run away from the mother's home, and his attempts to alienate the son from the mother, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in restricting the father's visitation with the son to two supervised visits per month (see, e.g., Matter of Belden v. Keyser, 206 A.D.2d 610; Kozak v. Kozak, 111 A.D.2d 842, 843).
Where, as here, the parties have agreed that the issue of the award of an attorney's fee is to be determined on papers, no hearing was necessary (see, Dowd v. White, 155 A.D.2d 459; Kerlinger v. Kerlinger, 121 A.D.2d 691).