Opinion
April 4, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court of Tompkins County (Sherman, J.).
The parties are the parents of a child born in May 1992. By order entered November 9, 1992, Family Court awarded the parties joint custody of their child, with primary physical custody to respondent and liberal visitation to petitioner. Primarily contending that respondent had denied him reasonable visitation with the child, in March 1994 petitioner filed separate petitions alleging respondent's violation of Family Court's custody order and seeking to modify it so as to grant him sole custody. In April 1994, respondent filed three petitions alleging petitioner's violation of the November 1992 order and seeking to modify it so as to grant her sole custody and to allow petitioner supervised visitation only. The matters came on for a fact-finding hearing in September 1994, at the conclusion of which Family Court entered an order which, among other things, awarded respondent sole custody of the child and permitted petitioner unsupervised visitation every other Sunday.
The only issue raised on petitioner's appeal, that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at the fact-finding hearing ( see, Matter of Dingman v. Purdy, 221 A.D.2d 817; Matter of Karen PP. v. Clyde QQ., 197 A.D.2d 753; Matter of De Vivo v Burrell, 101 A.D.2d 607), is wholly fallacious. Petitioner's claims of error are devoid of merit and in any event revolve around the admission of evidence that was so innocuous as to permit no possible claim of prejudice ( see, Matter of Dingman v Purdy, supra). Contrary to petitioner's assertions, the record reveals that he was provided with reasonably competent and thus meaningful legal representation at the fact-finding hearing ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147; Matter of Dingman v. Purdy, supra).
Cardona, P.J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.