Majority
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Gina M. Glover, R.), entered March 28, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, granted supervised visitation to petitioner.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is
In light of our determination, we must address only one of the father’s remaining contentions, i.e., that the court improperly allowed the Attorney for the Children to approve visitation supervisors. We reject that contention (see Matter of Kruty v Manell, 248 AD2d 809 , 811 [1998]; see also Matter of Vieira v Huff, 83 AD3d 1520 , 1521 [2011]). In doing so, we note that the court did not improperly delegate the determination of an issue involving the best interests of the children, “i.e., whether [unsupervised] visitation should resume and, if so, when” (Matter of Hameed v Alatawaneh, 19 AD3d 1135 , 1136 [2005]; cf. Matter of Battista v Battista, 294 AD2d 941 [2002]; Wills v Wills, 283 AD2d 1023 , 1024 [2001]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Bindley and Martoche, JJ.
Cases cited
- Bradbury v. Monaghan 77 AD3d 1424 at 1424 p. 1431
- In re Jose L. I. 46 NY2d 1024 at 1026 p. 1431
- Lincoln v. Lincoln 24 NY2d 270 p. 1431
- Kruty v. Manell 248 AD2d 809 at 811 p. 1431
- Vieira v. Huff 83 AD3d 1520 at 1521 p. 1431
- Hameed v. Hala Alatawaneh 19 AD3d 1135 at 1136 p. 1431