Opinion
January 9, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Edward Kaufmann, J.).
Family Court properly considered the report of the psychiatrist who had been appointed, by agreement, to evaluate the respondents to aid the court in determining custody. Such report of "'up-to-date examinations and investigations'" was necessary to assist the court in its inquiry "'into the capacities of [respondents] to properly supervise the [child]'" ( Matter of Marsha B.F., 110 A.D.2d 549, 550, quoting Matter of Debra VV, 52 A.D.2d 960, 961). Nor was such consideration an abrogation or delegation of authority, as the court utilized the report in conjunction with other evidence in determining the best interests of the child, while taking into account "the potential threat to the child's health and safety" ( Matter of Valerie Leonice T., 107 A.D.2d 327, 329).
The court properly denied appellants' requests to withdraw their consents to a finding of abuse (Family Ct Act § 1051 [a], [f]), as neither cited "good cause" to vacate the order (Family Ct Act § 1061).
The court appropriately exercised its discretion under County Law § 722-c in denying the grandmother's application for further public monies to pay for the testimony of the psychiatrist, where the psychiatrist's report alone was not determinative of the court's decision, and a claim that such testimony might add insight into the evaluation was insufficient to require the grant of funds ( see, Johnson v Harris, 682 F.2d 49, 50-51, cert denied 459 U.S. 1041; People v Gallow, 171 A.D.2d 1061, 1062-1063, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 995).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.