Opinion
November 5, 1992
Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Jeffry Gallet, J.).
Clear and convincing evidence supports Family Court's finding that respondent had abandoned his daughter within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b (5). The petitioning agency clearly established that for more than two and a half years preceding the filing of the petition, respondent made no efforts to contact either the child or the agency (see, Matter of Julius P., 63 N.Y.2d 477), although during this time he was unincarcerated for a continuous period of 18 months. Moreover, incarceration does not automatically excuse a parent from establishing or maintaining contact with a child (Matter of I.R., 153 A.D.2d 559, 561). Respondent's claim that his efforts to maintain contact were thwarted by petitioner was rejected by the court, which having observed the demeanor of the witnesses first hand, is in the best position to evaluate credibility (Matter of Layton v Foster, 61 N.Y.2d 747, 749; Matter of Whitten, 101 A.D.2d 254, 257, affd sub nom. Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136).
We have reviewed and find no merit to respondent's contentions that he did not receive proper notice of the termination proceedings (Social Services Law § 358-a [a]; see also, Family Ct Act § 616, 617), that he was deprived of a fair hearing by questions put to him by the court in the course of his testimony (see, People v Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 945), and that the court erred in not allowing him to testify concerning the contents of letters allegedly bearing on his attempts to communicate with the child (see, Richardson, Evidence § 568 [Prince 10th ed]).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.