Opinion
Submitted September 21, 1999
December 2, 1999
In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals (1) from a decision of the Family Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), dated October 14, 1997, (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered November 5, 1997, as denied that branch of her motion which was, in effect, to reargue the decision dated October 14, 1997, and (3) from an order of disposition of the same court, entered December 11, 1997, which, inter alia, awarded sole custody of the parties' three children to the father and directed that her visitation would be supervised.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.
Camilla W. von Bergen, Garrison, N.Y., for respondent.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeals from the decision dated October 14, 1997, and the order entered November 5, 1997, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from a nondispositional order in a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 (see, Fam. Ct. Act § 1112), and leave has not been granted, and for the further reason that no appeal lies from a decision (see, Dorizas v. Island Insulation Corp., 254 A.D.2d 246 ; Gill v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 249 A.D.2d 265 ;CPLR 2219[a], 5512[a]), or from an order which denies reargument of a decision (see, DeFalco v. JRS Confectionary, 118 A.D.2d 752, 753 ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered December 11, 1997, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court possessed adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident custody determination (see, Matter of Hermann v. Chakurmanian, 243 A.D.2d 1003 ; Asteinza v. Asteinza, 173 A.D.2d 515 ;Webster v. Webster, 163 A.D.2d 178 ; Meltzer v. Meltzer, 38 A.D.2d 522 ; cf., Metzger v. Metzger, 240 A.D.2d 642 ). The uncontroverted evidence before the court was sufficient to enable it, even without a hearing, to reach a sound conclusion that, under the circumstances of this case, it was not in the children's best interest for custody to be awarded to the mother (see, Matter of Vangas v. Ladas, 259 A.D.2d 755 [2d Dept., Mar. 29, 199 9]; Matter of Davies v. Davies, 223 A.D.2d 884 ; Matter of Goldman v. Goldman, 201 A.D.2d 860, 861-862 ; David W. v. Julia W., 158 A.D.2d 1, 6 ; Matter of Ehrlich v. Ressner, 55 A.D.2d 953 ).
We further find that the existence of exceptional circumstances justifies the court's restriction on the mother's right to visitation with the children (see, Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, 193-194, aff'd 56 N.Y.2d 938 ; Strahl v. Strahl, 66 A.D.2d 571, 574, aff'd 49 N.Y.2d 1036 ; see also, Matter of Thaxton v. Morro, 222 A.D.2d 955, 956 ).
S. MILLER, J.P., RITTER, FLORIO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.