| Matter of Fitje v Fitje |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06234 [87 AD3d 599] |
| August 9, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Janine Fitje, Appellant, v Justin Fitje,Respondent. |
—[*1]
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, themother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated October19, 2010, which, without a hearing, dismissed her petition to modify the custody and visitationprovisions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated May5, 2009, so as to award her sole custody of the subject children and to reduce the father'svisitation with the subject children.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
An application to modify the custody and visitation provisions of a judgment that are basedupon a stipulation of the parties will not be granted absent a showing of a sufficient change incircumstances from the time of the stipulation, and that the modification would be in the bestinterests of the children (see Matter ofDeochand v Deochand, 80 AD3d 609 [2011]; Matter of Skeete v Hamilton, 78 AD3d 1187, 1187-1188 [2010];Spratt v Fontana, 46 AD3d 670,671 [2007]). A party seeking such a modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing on theapplication, but first must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Mazzola v Lee, 76 AD3d531 [2010]; Matter of Grassi vGrassi, 28 AD3d 482 [2006]; Matter of Timson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691, 692 [2004]; Matter of Carpenter v Whitaker, 5AD3d 681 [2004]; Matter of Blake v Vilbig, 288 AD2d 470 [2001]). Here, theconclusory, unsubstantiated, and nonspecific allegations set forth in the mother's petition failed tomeet this standard, and the Family Court properly dismissed the petition without a hearing (see Matter of Deochand v Deochand,80 AD3d 609 [2011]; Matter ofLeichter-Kessler v Kessler, 71 AD3d 1148 [2010]; Salvatore v Salvatore, 68 AD3d 966, 967 [2009]; Matter of Blackstock v Price, 51 AD3d914 [2008]; Spratt v Fontana,46 AD3d 670 [2007]; Matter ofDavis v Venditto, 45 AD3d 837 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Cohen, JJ.,concur.