SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

909 

CAF 14-00442 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF PATRICK ORDONA, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PAMELA CAMPBELL, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, 

AND JENNIFER COTHERN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

 

DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

AVERY S. OLSON, JAMESTOWN, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

JILL A. SPAYER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, DUNKIRK.

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FREDONIA. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County

(Judith S. Claire, J.), entered February 13, 2014 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia,

terminated respondent Pamela Campbell’s visitation with the subject

children. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act

article 6, respondent Pamela Campbell (grandmother) appeals from an

order that, inter alia, terminated her visitation with the two subject

children. Contrary to the grandmother’s contention, Family Court

properly determined that it is not in the children’s best interests to

continue visitation with the grandmother (see generally Matter of

Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 382; Matter of Schillaci v Forbes, 70

AD3d 1444, 1445). We also reject the grandmother’s contention that

the court erred in admitting hearsay statements of the subject

children in evidence at the hearing on the petition. “It is well

settled that there is ‘an exception to the hearsay rule in custody

cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child, based on

the Legislature’s intent to protect children from abuse and neglect as

evidenced in Family [Court] Act § 1046 (a) (vi)’ . . . , where, as

here, the statements are corroborated” (Matter of Mateo v Tuttle, 26

AD3d 731, 732; see Matter of Sutton v Sutton, 74 AD3d 1838, 1840; cf.

Matter of Hall v Hawthorne, 99 AD3d 1237, 1238). The statement of

each child “tend[s] to support the statement[] of the other[] and,

viewed together, [the statements] give sufficient indicia of
-2- 909 

CAF 14-00442 

reliability to each [child’s] out-of-court statement[]” (Matter of

Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 124; see Matter of Aimee J., 34 AD3d 1350,

1351). Moreover, there is additional corroboration from other

witnesses who testified at the hearing. 

The record does not support the grandmother’s contention that the

change in visitation will eliminate contact between the subject

children and their half-siblings. In any event, we note that,

“although sibling relationships should not be disrupted unless there

is some overwhelming need to do so” (Matter of O’Connell v O’Connell,

105 AD3d 1367, 1368 [internal quotation marks omitted]), here there is

such a need. The record supports the court’s determination that it is

in the best interests of the subject children to eliminate the

grandmother’s visitation in view of the grandmother’s failure to abide

by court orders, the grandmother’s animosity toward the father, with

whom the children reside, and the fact that the grandmother frequently

engaged in acts that undermined the subject children’s relationship

with their father (see Matter of Hilgenberg v Hertel, 100 AD3d 1432,

1433; see generally Matter of E.S. v P.D., 8 NY3d 150, 157-158). 

Entered: October 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court