| Matter of Mattie M. v Administration for Children's Servs. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00954 [48 AD3d 392] |
| February 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Mattie M., Appellant, v Administration forChildren's Services et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and AlanBeckoff of counsel), for respondent Administration for Children's Services. Elliot Green, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent Anthony W., Sr. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Diane Pazar of counsel), LawGuardian.
In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals, aslimited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.),dated August 10, 2006, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination grantingthe father's application to dismiss so much of the petition as sought custody of the subjectchildren Anthony W. and Stellasha W.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner's motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument, was, in effect, amotion for leave to reargue, as it was not based upon new facts that were not offered at the timeof the father's application (see CPLR 2221 [e]). As the Family Court reviewed the meritsof the petitioner's contentions on her motion for leave to reargue, the court, in effect, grantedreargument and adhered to its original determination. Therefore, the order dated August 10,2006, made upon [*2]reargument, is appealable (see Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc.,29 AD3d 560, 561 [2006]; McNeil v Dixon, 9 AD3d 481, 482 [2004]; McNamara vRockland County Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., 302 AD2d 435, 436 [2003]).
As the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the court misapprehended any of the relevantfacts that were before it or misapplied any controlling principle of law, the court properlyadhered to its prior determination granting the father's application to dismiss so much of thepetition as sought custody of the subject children, Anthony W. and Stellasha W.
Furthermore, a parent seeking a change in custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing,but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Grassi v Grassi, 28 AD3d482 [2006]; Matter of Carpenter vWhitaker, 5 AD3d 681, 682 [2004]; Matter of Madden v Cavanaugh, 307 AD2d266 [2003]). Here, the petitioner failed to make such a showing. The Family Court possessedsufficient information to render an informed determination on a change in custody without ahearing, consistent with the best interests of the subject children (see Matter of Williams v O'Toole, 4AD3d 371, 372 [2004]; Matter of Smith v Molody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364 [2003]). Inthis regard, the court had great familiarity with the history of the petitioner and her childrendating back to 2001 and was able to render an informed decision to reflect the best interests ofthe subject children.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Rivera, Angiolillo andDickerson, JJ., concur.