Opinion
2012-04-24
In the Matter of Reeva ARONOWICH–CULHANE, appellant, v. Angelique FOURNIER, respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Sedrick G. Malcolm, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, N.Y., for appellant. 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.PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, RANDALL T. ENG, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the paternal 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 modify the 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 that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child” ( Matter of Strand–O'Shea v. O'Shea, 32 A.D.3d 398, 398, 819 N.Y.S.2d 109; see Matter of Fitje v. Fitje, 87 A.D.3d 599, 600, 927 N.Y.S.2d 918; Matter of Deochand v. Deochand, 80 A.D.3d 609, 610, 914 N.Y.S.2d 668; Matter of Mazurkiewicz v. Pindor–Mazurkiewicz, 80 A.D.3d 615, 616, 914 N.Y.S.2d 657). “A party seeking such a modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing on the application, but first must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing” ( Matter of Fitje v. Fitje, 87 A.D.3d at 600, 927 N.Y.S.2d 918; see Matter of Deochand v. Deochand, 80 A.D.3d at 610, 914 N.Y.S.2d 668; Matter of Mazzola v. Lee, 76 A.D.3d 531, 906 N.Y.S.2d 83; Matter of Grassi v. Grassi, 28 A.D.3d 482, 812 N.Y.S.2d 638; Matter of Carpenter v. Whitaker, 5 A.D.3d 681, 774 N.Y.S.2d 761). Here, the conclusory, unsubstantiated, and nonspecific allegations set forth in the paternal grandmother's petition failed to meet this standard, and the Family Court properly dismissed the petition without a hearing ( see Matter of Fitje v. Fitje, 87 A.D.3d at 600, 927 N.Y.S.2d 918; Matter of Deochand v. Deochand, 80 A.D.3d at 610, 914 N.Y.S.2d 668; Matter of Grant v. Hunter, 64 A.D.3d 779, 884 N.Y.S.2d 763; Matter of Blackstock v. Price, 51 A.D.3d 914, 915, 858 N.Y.S.2d 733).