The father, identified only as A.V., had his kids taken away from him by court order in May 2000 after claiming he had visions of beating them.

But he got a belated Christmas present yesterday, when an appeals court bought his "nicotine patch" defense and snuffed the lower court's ruling.

In the unanimous and bizarre decision, a five-judge panel of the Manhattan Appellate Division found the dad's admission that he hit his wife and kids was likely the result of a terrible pipe dream from hallucinations he experienced while trying to quit smoking.

"I'd never seen a case like this before," said A.V.'s appeals lawyer, Lawrence Bloom. He said his office-worker client is "very happy" and "breathed a sigh of relief" when he found out about the ruling.

"He did exactly what he was supposed to do," Bloom said. "He had these nightmares and visions of violence, and he asked for help. As a result, he's been through three years of hell."

The odd case dates back to February 1999, when A.V. went to see the family nurse and told her "he had these nightmares and visions of violence," Bloom said. The nurse referred him to a psychiatrist, and then both reported A.V. to the city Administration for Children's Services (ACS).

The agency forced him to move out of his house and keep away from his wife, son and daughter, except for supervised visits.

In May 2000, that move was formalized when Family Court Judge Jody Adams found A.V. had neglected his children.

The Appellate Division decision, however, found the case against A.V. was cloudy, and that ACS didn't meet its burden to prove its case by "preponderance of the evidence."

The judges noted that A.V.'s family denied he'd ever hit them, and that the kids' teachers, doctor, and even an ACS caseworker found no evidence of abuse.

They also credited the testimony of A.V.'s medical experts, who found "he was probably suffering from delusional episodes caused by nicotine withdrawal or the use of a nicotine patch," which Bloom said can cause "nicotine intoxication."

The lawyer added his client has won more than his court case - he successfully stopped smoking more than a year ago.

A spokeswoman for ACS said they were reviewing the case and declined comment.