Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter

2004 NYSlipOp 07181

Decided on October 4, 2004

Appellate Division, Second Department

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 4, 2004
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARMENT
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
THOMAS A. ADAMS
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, JJ.
2003-09091






Diamond and Diamond, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Stuart Diamond
of counsel), for appellant.
Eli Yeger, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter, Barbara H.
Dildine, and Marjorie R. Steinberg of
counsel), Law Guardian for the child.

In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Goldstein, R.), dated September 18, 2003, which, without a hearing, granted the mother's motion to dismiss the petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

The father, who sought to modify the visitation schedule contained in the parties' judgment of divorce, failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing that there had been a material change of circumstances since the entry of that judgment so as to require a hearing on the issue (see Matter of Timson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691, 692; Matter of Heuthe v McLaren, 1 AD3d 514; Matter
of Blake v Vilbig, 288 AD2d 470; Matter of Milhollen v Voelpel, 270 AD2d 422; Matter of Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 261 AD2d 623).
PRUDENTI, P.J., KRAUSMAN, ADAMS and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court