Opinion
03-15-2017
In the Matter of Zindel LEBOVIC, appellant, v. Shira LEBOVIC, respondent.
Elliot Green, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Daniel M. Bauso, Jamaica, NY, for respondent. Eric Perlmutter, Jamaica, NY, attorney for the child Azriel L. John J. Marotta, Douglaston, NY, attorney for the children Aliza L. and Shlomo L.
Elliot Green, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Daniel M. Bauso, Jamaica, NY, for respondent.
Eric Perlmutter, Jamaica, NY, attorney for the child Azriel L.
John J. Marotta, Douglaston, NY, attorney for the children Aliza L. and Shlomo L.
Appeal by the father from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Julie Stanton, Ct.Atty.Ref.), both dated October 15, 2015. The first order, without a hearing, granted the mother's motion to dismiss the father's petition to modify an order of visitation, and the second order dismissed the father's petition.ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the father's petition to modify an order of visitation to grant him increased visitation with the subject children. A party seeking to modify a prior visitation order must show that there has been a sufficient change in circumstances since the entry of the order of visitation such that modification is warranted to further the children's best interests (see Matter of Licato v. Jornet, 146 A.D.3d 787, 45 N.Y.S.3d 171 ; Matter of Coull v. Rottman, 131 A.D.3d 964, 15 N.Y.S.3d 834 ; Matter of Diaz v. Garcia, 119 A.D.3d 682, 988 N.Y.S.2d 899 ). The party seeking modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Besen v. Besen, 127 A.D.3d 1076, 5 N.Y.S.3d 891 ; Whitehead v. Whitehead, 122 A.D.3d 921, 998 N.Y.S.2d 99 ; Matter of Getreu v. Bossert, 82 A.D.3d 1098, 919 N.Y.S.2d 342 ). The father failed to make such an evidentiary showing. The Family Court's determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record, and should not be set aside (see Matter of Licato v. Jornet, 146 A.D.3d at 787, 45 N.Y.S.3d 171; Matter of McDaniel v. McDaniel, 140 A.D.3d 1167, 34 N.Y.S.3d 499 ; Matter of Fekete–Markovits v. Markovits, 140 A.D.3d 1061, 35 N.Y.S.3d 177 ).
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.