| Matter of Aronowich-Culhane v Fournier |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03186 [94 AD3d 1114] |
| April 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Reeva Aronowich-Culhane,Appellant, v Angelique Fournier, Respondent. |
—[*1] Sedrick G. Malcolm, New York, N.Y., for respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine and Janet Neustaetter of counsel),attorney for the children.
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, thepaternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Valme-Lundy,Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated June 3, 2011, which, without a hearing, dismissed her petition to modifythe custody provisions of an order of custody and visitation of the Supreme Court, Bronx County(Kiesel, J.), dated April 30, 2009, so as to award her sole custody of the subject children.
Ordered that the order dated June 3, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing thatthere has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the bestinterests of the child" (Matter ofStrand-O'Shea v O'Shea, 32 AD3d 398, 398 [2006]; see Matter of Fitje v Fitje, 87 AD3d 599, 600 [2011]; Matter of Deochand v Deochand, 80AD3d 609, 610 [2011]; Matter ofMazurkiewicz v Pindor-Mazurkiewicz, 80 AD3d 615, 616 [2011]). "A party seekingsuch a modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing on the application, but first mustmake an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing" (Matter of Fitje v Fitje, 87AD3d at 600; see Matter of Deochand v Deochand, 80 AD3d at 610; Matter of Mazzola v Lee, 76 AD3d531 [2010]; Matter of Grassi vGrassi, 28 AD3d 482 [2006]; Matter of Carpenter v Whitaker, 5 AD3d 681 [2004]). Here, theconclusory, unsubstantiated, and nonspecific allegations set forth in the paternal grandmother'spetition failed to meet this standard, and the Family Court properly dismissed the petitionwithout a hearing (see Matter of Fitje v Fitje, 87 AD3d at 600; Matter of Deochand vDeochand, 80 AD3d at 610; Matterof Grant v Hunter, 64 AD3d 779 [2009]; Matter of Blackstock v Price, 51 AD3d 914, 915 [2008]). Skelos,J.P., Florio, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.