Matter of Potente v Wasilewski
2008 NY Slip Op 04355 [51 AD3d 675]
May 6, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 16, 2008


In the Matter of Sal Potente, Appellant,
v
CristaWasilewski, Respondent.

[*1]Frank Marocco, Carmel, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas F. Fanelli, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Westchester County (Devlin, J.), dated May 10, 2007, which, withouta hearing, granted the mother's motion to dismiss the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly granted the mother's motion todismiss his petition for visitation without a hearing. The subject child was born in October 1996.The father was granted supervised visitation in 1997. He voluntarily discontinued supervisedvisitation in May 1998 and thereafter did not see the child.

A parent seeking a change in visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but mustmake some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Sitzer v Fay, 27 AD3d566 [2006]; Matter of Walberg vRudden, 14 AD3d 572 [2005]). Here, the father failed to provide any evidence todemonstrate a change of circumstances which would warrant visitation with his son (see Matter of Hongach v Hongach, 44AD3d 664 [2007]; Matter ofTimson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691 [2004]).

The court possessed adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed andprovident determination as to the child's best interest (see Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]; Matter ofSmith v Molody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364 [2003]), based upon, inter alia, an in camerainterview with the child and the position of the attorney for the child, who had been involved inthe case for several [*2]years (see Matter of Grassi v Grassi, 28 AD3d 482 [2006]; Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d536 [2004]). In view of the foregoing, the denial of a hearing was a provident exercise ofdiscretion. Miller, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.