Opinion
February 17, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.).
Neither appellant's one letter to petitioner in the six months immediately prior to filing the petition nor his unsubstantiated expressions of interest in the child were sufficient to overcome his longstanding and well established pattern of abandonment (see, Matter of Crawford, 153 A.D.2d 108; Matter of Dawntal Danielle C., 170 A.D.2d 375). Incarceration does not, in and of itself, constitute good reason for failure to visit or communicate (Matter of Ulysses T., 87 A.D.2d 998, affd 66 N.Y.2d 773). The undisputed facts confirm that, despite the opportunity to write and call from prison, appellant made no attempt to contact the child and only limited effort to contact the agency.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.