| Matter of Gold v Gold |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00266 [47 AD3d 714] |
| January 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Florence Gold, Appellant, v Gene Gold etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] Marcus, Ollman & Kommer, LLP, New Rochelle, N.Y. (Rachel F. Ciccone and John F.Kommer of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation, the paternalgrandmother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.),dated April 12, 2007, which, without a hearing, denied her petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On December 6, 2006, in settlement of pending litigation between them, the parties enteredinto a stipulation in open court, which provided that the appellant Florence Gold (hereinafter thegrandmother) was allowed five supervised visits per year with the grandchildren in DutchessCounty. After having the first of these visits in February 2007, the grandmother filed the instantpetition in March 2007, requesting unsupervised visitation in her home in Bronx County on theground that a deterioration in her health had made it difficult for her to travel to DutchessCounty.
The Family Court properly denied the petition without a hearing. The grandmothervoluntarily entered into the settlement agreement defining the terms of her visitation with thegrandchildren, and she failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing that there had been amaterial change of circumstances in the four months since that agreement which would entitleher to a hearing on the issue of modification (see Nash v Yablon-Nash, 16 AD3d 471 [2005]; Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11AD3d 471 [2004]; Matter ofTimson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691, 692 [2004]).[*2]
The grandmother's remaining contentions are withoutmerit. Mastro, J.P., Lifson, Covello and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.