| Matter of Grant v Hunter |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06019 [64 AD3d 779] |
| July 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christine Grant, Appellant, v LarneyHunter, Respondent. |
—[*1] Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Louise Feld of counsel), attorneyfor the child.
In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County(Krauss, J.), dated April 9, 2008, as, without a hearing, granted the father's motion to dismiss herpetition for custody of the subject child or for expanded visitation rights, on the ground that thepetition failed to state a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant modification of a priororder of the same court dated November 8, 2004, awarding custody to the father and certainvisitation rights to the mother.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Family Court properly dismissed, without a hearing, the mother's petition for custody ofthe subject child or expanded visitation rights with respect to the subject child (see Matter of Mattie M. v Administrationfor Children's Servs., 48 AD3d 392 [2008]; Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11 AD3d 471 [2004]). "'Modification of an existing custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon ashowing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary toensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child' " (Matter of Riedel v Riedel, 61 AD3d979, quoting Matter of Molinari vTuthill, 59 AD3d 722, 723 [2009]; see Matter of Gurewich v Gurewich, 58 AD3d 628 [2009]). Aperson seeking a change in visitation or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, butmust make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Riedel vRiedel, 61 AD3d at 979; Matter of Gurewich v Gurewich, 58 AD3d at 629).
Here, the mother failed to make such a showing (see Matter of Bauman v Abbate, 48 AD3d 679, 680 [2008]; Matter of Mattie M. v Administration forChildren's Servs., 48 AD3d 392 [2008]; Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11 AD3d 471 [2004]). Themother's assertions were largely unsubstantiated or conclusory (see Matter of Blackstock v Price, 51AD3d 914, 915 [2008]; Matter ofEl-Sheemy v El-Sheemy, 35 AD3d 738, 739 [2006]; Nash v Yablon-Nash, 16 AD3d 471 [2005]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos,Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.