Cardona v. VantasselCardona v. Vantassel
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
” ‘[T]he determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the hearing court based upon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a substantial basis in the record’ ” (Matter of McLean v Simpson, 82 AD3d 1101, 1101 [2011], quoting Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak, 10 AD3d 366 [2004] [citations omitted]; see Matter of
“Generally, [v]isitation should be decided after a full evidentiary hearing to determine the best interests of the child[ren]. A hearing is not necessary, however, where the court possesses adequate relevant information to make an informed determination of the children‘s best interests” (Matter of Johnson v Alaji, 74 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
Here, there is a substantial basis in the record to support a finding that visitation with the father would not be in the child‘s best interests (see Matter of McLean v Simpson, 82 AD3d at 1102; Matter of Butler v Ewers, 78 AD3d 1667 [2010]; Matter of Johnson v Alaji, 74 AD3d at 1203).
The father‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the father‘s petition was properly dismissed.
Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.