Matter of Reilly v Reilly
2009 NY Slip Op 05868 [64 AD3d 660]
July 14, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, September 2, 2009


In the Matter of Brian G. Reilly,Appellant-Respondent,
v
Carole A. Reilly,Respondent-Appellant.

[*1]Brian G. Reilly, Fishkill, N.Y., appellant-respondent pro se.

Yasmin Daley-Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent-appellant.

Diane P. Foley, Wappingers Falls, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), datedOctober 19, 2007, as granted that branch of the mother's motion which was to dismiss, without ahearing, his petition to modify a visitation order dated January 29, 2007, and the mothercross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as denied that branch ofher motion which was for an award of an attorney's fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costsor disbursements.

One who seeks a change in visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing but must makea sufficient evidentiary showing of a material change of circumstances to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Rodriguez v Hangartner,59 AD3d 630 [2009]; Matterof Gold v Gold, 53 AD3d 485, 488 [2008]; Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14 AD3d 572 [2005]; Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11AD3d 471 [2004]; Matter of Brocher v Brocher, 213 AD2d 544 [1995]). Contrary tothe father's contention, the Family Court properly dismissed, without a hearing, his petition tomodify the order of visitation (see Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14 AD3d at 572; Smoczkiewicz v Smoczkiewicz, 2AD3d 705, 706 [2003]; Matter ofRitchie v Waters, 1 AD3d 839, 840 [2003]; Matter of Gerow v Gerow, 257AD2d 718, 718-719 [1999]; cf. Matterof Hermanowski v Hermanowski, 57 AD3d 777, 778 [2008]; Matter of Vasquez-Williams v Williams,32 AD3d 859, 859-860 [2006]).

The Family Court properly denied that branch of the mother's motion which was for anaward of an attorney's fee. Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Dillon and Covello, 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.