| Matter of Chrysler v Fabian |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07018 [66 AD3d 1446] |
| October 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Sandra Mary Chrysler, Appellant, v LeonardAdam Fabian, Sr., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Leonard Adam Fabian, Sr. and Laurie Teresa Fabian, respondents-respondents pro se. Francis I. Walter, Law Guardian, Syracuse, for Cory K.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Bryan R. Hedges, J.), enteredJune 2, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed thepetition.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order dismissing, without prejudice, herpetition seeking modification of a custody order entered upon the consent of the parties, i.e., themother, her cousin and her cousin's husband, in October 2005. We reject the contention of themother that Family Court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to determine whether a transfer ofcustody to her was in the best interests of the child. "A party seeking a change in an establishedcustody arrangement must show 'a change in circumstances which reflects a real need for changeto ensure the best interest[s] of the child' " (Matter of Di Fiore v Scott, 2 AD3d 1417, 1417 [2003]). Althoughthe petition alleged that the mother had obtained suitable housing and employment and that the13-year-old child wished to reside with her, the mother advised the court at the time of the courtappearance on the petition that she was not employed, and the Law Guardian advised the courtthat the child wished to remain with respondents. We therefore conclude that the mother failed tomake a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Mindy L.H. v Steve W.H., 37 AD3d 1145 [2007],lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]). Furthermore, we note that the court "was fully familiarwith relevant background facts regarding the parties and the child from several pastproceedings," and thus a hearing on the petition was not necessary to determine its merits (Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14AD3d 572 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.