Matter of Mennuti v Berry
2009 NY Slip Op 01222 [59 AD3d 625]
February 17, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 1, 2009


In the Matter of Mark Mennuti, Appellant,
v
Bianca Berry,Respondent.

[*1]Mark Mennuti, Mastic, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Karyn E. Bell, Riverhard, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, to modify the visitationprovisions of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated November 1,2007, the father appeals from an order of the same court dated April 15, 2008, which, without ahearing, dismissed the petition.

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

Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion indismissing, without a hearing, his petition, inter alia, to modify an existing order of visitation (see Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14AD3d 572 [2005]; Matter of Blake v Vilbig, 288 AD2d 470 [2001]; Matter ofMilhollen v Voelpel, 270 AD2d 422 [2000]). A person who seeks to modify an existingorder of visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make some evidentiaryshowing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14 AD3d at572; Matter of Steinharter vSteinharter, 11 AD3d 471 [2004]; Matter of Timson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691 [2004]; Matter ofBlake v Vilbig, 288 AD2d at 470). Here, the father failed to allege or provide any evidenceof a subsequent change of circumstances which would warrant a hearing on the issue ofincreased visitation (see Matter ofPotente v Wasilewski, 51 AD3d 675, 676 [2008]; Matter of Hongach v Hongach, 44 AD3d 664 [2007]; Matter of Timson v Timson, 5 AD3d691 [2004]). Moreover, the Family Court was fully familiar with relevant background factsregarding the parties and the child based on several [*2]priorproceedings (see Matter of Pignataro vDavis, 8 AD3d 487 [2004]; Matter of Hom v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]; Matter of Smith vMolody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364 [2003]).

The father's remaining contention is not properly before this Court (see CPLR 5501).Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Covello and Leventhal, 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.