IN THE MATTER OF MACHADO v. DEL VILLAR

ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination on the issue of custody, in accordance herewith, to be held with all convenient speed; and it is further,

ORDERED that pending the new determination, custody of the infant child shall remain with the father, and visitation shall be in accordance with that provided in the order appealed from.

The Family Court's custody determination lacks a "sound and substantial basis in the record" (Matter of Thomas v. Merrill, 296 A.D.2d 416). It is clear that the "abbreviated hearing" that the Family Court conducted, where no witnesses were called, "constituted an insufficient basis" for the court "to form an opinion, founded upon reason and a close analysis of the totality of the circumstances, and a weighing of all relevant factors, as to what custody disposition was in the child's best interests" (State ex rel. Hathaway v. Baker, 103 A.D.2d 762, 763). At the new hearing, the court may, of course, appoint a forensic expert (see Matter of DiMedio v. DiMedio, 233 A.D.2d 394, 396), or conduct an in camera interview of the child (see Koppenhoefer v. Koppenhoefer, 159 A.D.2d 113, 117). It shall consider the full range of factors that are pertinent to the issue of custody, including the allegation of the past threat of domestic violence and other occurrences since the date of the order appealed from (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[a][4]; Matter of Finkbeiner v. Finkbeiner, 270 A.D.2d 417). Additionally, the court, in rendering its decision, shall address those factors, and shall "set forth the facts upon which it relied in making its custody determination" (Matter of Fragola v. Fragola, 246 A.D.2d 649: see Matter of DiMedio v. DiMedio, supra at 395; McDermott v. McDermott, 124 A.D.2d 715; Matter of Miller v. Miller, 220 A.D.2d 133; CPLR 4213[b]).

We also note that the court's failure to advise the mother of her right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 constituted reversible error (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Rodriquez, 284 A.D.2d 330; Matter of Wilson v. Bennett, 282 A.D.2d 933; Matter of Sasha S., 256 A.D.2d 468; Matter of Brainard v. Brainard, 88 A.D.2d 996; Matter of Sabat v. Sabat, 72 A.D.2d 585).

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.