| Matter of Gridley v Syrko |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03837 [50 AD3d 1560] |
| April 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Joseph P. Gridley, Respondent, v Shannon M.Syrko, Appellant. |
—[*1] Mevec & Cognetti, Syracuse (Ralph A. Cognetti of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (George M. Raus, Jr., Ref.),entered October 12, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The ordermodified a prior custody and visitation order.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the lawwithout costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order modifying a prior order of custodyand visitation, entered upon the parties' stipulation, by substantially increasing the visitation ofpetitioner father with the parties' child. We agree with the mother that Family Court erred ingranting the petition, which sought the increase in visitation. Although a prior order entered uponstipulation of the parties "is entitled to less weight than a disposition after a plenary trial" (Matter of Alexandra H. v RaymondB.H., 37 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]), the father wasrequired to establish a sufficient change in circumstances between the time of the stipulation andthe time of the hearing on the petition to warrant modification of the prior order (see Matter of Hight v Hight, 19 AD3d1159, 1160 [2005]; Matter ofAppell v Gooden, 13 AD3d 1212, 1213 [2004]). Although the father testified at thehearing on the petition that his petition was based upon his desire to spend more time with thechild, his dissatisfaction with the stipulated order, without more, is insufficient to establish asufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of the prior order (see generally Matter of Echols vWeiner, 46 AD3d 825 [2007]). In any event, the court's determination that it was in thechild's best interests to modify the father's visitation schedule is not supported by a substantialbasis in the record (see generally Matterof Bryan K.B. v Destiny S.B., 43 AD3d 1448 [2007]).
The mother's remaining contention is based on matters outside the record on appeal and thusnot properly before us (see generallyMatter of Harry P. v Cindy W., 48 AD3d 1100 [2008]). Present—Lunn, J.P.,Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.