| Matter of Lamarche v Jessie |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05768 [74 AD3d 1341] |
| June 29, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Robert T. Lamarche, Jr.,Respondent, v Alana Jessie, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the motherappeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), dated December9, 2009, which, without a hearing, granted that branch of the father's petition which soughtunsupervised visitation with the subject child, and (2) an order of the same court dated January19, 2010, which, without a hearing, granted that branch of the father's petition which soughtunsupervised overnight visitation with the subject child.
Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law and the facts, with one bill of costs to theappellant, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for furtherproceedings consistent herewith.
"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 Leichter-Kessler vKessler, 71 AD3d 1148, 1148-1149 [2010]; see Family Ct Act § 467 [a];Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381 [2004]; Matter of Catalano vCatalano, 66 AD3d 1012, 1013 [2009]). "Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessaryregarding a modification of visitation" (Matter of Jeffers v Hicks, 67 AD3d 800, 801[2009]; see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda, 51 AD3d 673 [2008]). However, "a hearingwill not be necessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it tomake an informed and provident determination as to the child's best interest" (Matter of Homv Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]; see Matter of Jeffers v Hicks, 67 AD3d at 801;Matter of Attallah N., 65 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2009]; Matter of Amir J.-L., 57AD3d 669 [2008]; Matter of Franklin v Richey, 57 AD3d 663, 665 [2008]).
Here, the father petitioned to receive unsupervised visitation and unsupervised overnightvisitation with the subject child. His evidentiary submissions were sufficient to warrant ahearing, and the court did not possess adequate relevant information to enable it to make adetermination as to the best interests of the child in the absence of a hearing.
Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for ahearing with respect to the father's petition, after the completion of a full forensic evaluation ofthe father [*2]and the results of a home study (see Matter ofJave v Danial, 70 AD3d 696 [2010]; Matter of Sahara K., 66 AD3d 1024, 1025[2009]). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Hall, JJ., concur.