| Matter of Riedel v Riedel |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03522 [61 AD3d 979] |
| April 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Lee Ann Riedel, Appellant, v Paul Riedel,Respondent. |
—[*1] Constantino & Constantino, Copiague, N.Y. (Steven A. Constantino of counsel), forrespondent.
In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law articles 5 and 5-A to modifythe visitation provisions of a judgment of divorce entered in the State of Florida, the motherappeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated March 17,2008, which, without a hearing, denied her petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing,her petition to modify the visitation provisions of the Florida judgment of divorce. "Modificationof an existing custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that therehas been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continuedbest interests and welfare of the child" (Matter of Molinari v Tuthill, 59 AD3d 722, 723 [2009]; see Matter of Shockome v Shockome,53 AD3d 618, 619 [2008]). A person seeking a change in visitation is not automaticallyentitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Rodriguez v Hangartner,59 AD3d 630 [2009]; Matter ofMennuti v Berry, 59 AD3d 625 [2009]; Matter of Hermanowski v Hermanowski, 57 AD3d 777, 778[2008]). Here, the mother failed to make an evidentiary showing of a subsequent change incircumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing.[*2]
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.