Douglas H. Reiniger, New York, for appellant.John R. Eyerman, New York, for respondent.Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Waksberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about February 9, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from, determined that respondent father's consent was not required for the subject child's adoption, and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The consent of respondent to the adoption of the subject child was not required since he did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” (Domestic Relations Law § 111[1][d] ). Respondent admittedly provided no financial support for the child, and the record does not contain any objective evidence of efforts to visit or communicate with the child ( see Matter of Marc Jaleel G., 74 A.D.3d 689, 905 N.Y.S.2d 160 [2010]; Matter of Chandel B., 58 A.D.3d 547, 872 N.Y.S.2d 438 [2009] ). His incarceration does not absolve him of his responsibility for supporting the child or for maintaining regular contact ( see Matter of Bryant Angel Malik J., 76 A.D.3d 936, 908 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2010]; Matter of Aaron P., 61 A.D.3d 448, 877 N.Y.S.2d 30 [2009] ).
The court's determination that the child's best interests would be served by adoption is supported by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ). The child has lived with his foster parents since he was one month old, and the foster parents, who have provided the child with a loving and nurturing home, have been attentive to the child's developmental and extraordinary medical needs
( see Matter of Joshua Jezreel M., 80 A.D.3d 538, 915 N.Y.S.2d 74 [2011]; Matter of Joaquin Enrique C., III, 79 A.D.3d 548, 912 N.Y.S.2d 219 [2010] ). We have considered and rejected respondent's additional arguments.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SAXE, ACOSTA, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.