Opinion
2011-03-22
In the Matter of Andrew GETREU, appellant, v. Samantha BOSSERT, respondent.
William A. Sheeckutz, Massapequa, N.Y., for appellant. Mitra K. Zervos, Great Neck, N.Y., for respondent.
William A. Sheeckutz, Massapequa, N.Y., for appellant. Mitra K. Zervos, Great Neck, N.Y., for respondent.
Jeffrey W. Halbreich, Baldwin, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lopresti, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated March 8, 2010, which denied, without a hearing, his motion to modify a “final modified order of parenting time” of the same court dated August 14, 2009, by appointing a new therapist to conduct the court-ordered program of therapeutic visitation.
ORDERED that the order dated March 8, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
One who seeks a change in visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing but must make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a material change of circumstances to warrant a hearing ( see Matter of Collazo v. Collazo, 78 A.D.3d 1177, 911 N.Y.S.2d 658;Matter of Reilly v. Reilly, 64 A.D.3d 660, 881 N.Y.S.2d 895;Matter of Rodriguez v. Hangartner, 59 A.D.3d 630, 630–631, 874 N.Y.S.2d 501;Matter of Perez v. Sepulveda, 51 A.D.3d 673, 857 N.Y.S.2d 659;Matter of Walberg v. Rudden, 14 A.D.3d 572, 787 N.Y.S.2d 666). Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly denied, without a hearing, his motion to modify the “final modified order of parenting time” ( see Matter of Collazo v. Collazo, 78 A.D.3d 1177, 911 N.Y.S.2d 658;Matter of Reilly v. Reilly, 64 A.D.3d at 660, 881 N.Y.S.2d 895;Matter of Rodriguez v. Hangartner, 59 A.D.3d at 630–631, 874 N.Y.S.2d 501;Matter of Perez v. Sepulveda, 51 A.D.3d at 673, 857 N.Y.S.2d 659;Matter of Walberg v. Rudden, 14 A.D.3d at 572, 787 N.Y.S.2d 666).