Opinion
11826 Dkt. V-29156-13/18D
07-16-2020
In re TANYA H., Petitioner–Appellant, v. DENNIS H., Respondent–Respondent.
Diaz & Moskowitz, PLLC, New York (Hani M. Moskowitz of counsel), for appellant.
Diaz & Moskowitz, PLLC, New York (Hani M. Moskowitz of counsel), for appellant.
Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Kern, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jennifer S. Burtt, Referee), entered on or about April 11, 2019, which dismissed petitioner mother's petition to modify an order of visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The change in circumstances identified by the mother, namely respondent father's refusal to comply with provisions of the existing visitation order requiring him to confirm his visitation in advance and pick the child up from the police precinct, his failure to consistently exercise visitation, and his irrational and combative attitude toward the Family Court, did not demonstrate that modification of the visitation order would serve the best interests of the child (see Matter of Jose M.C. v. Liliana C., 150 A.D.3d 514, 55 N.Y.S.3d 21 [1st Dept. 2017]; see generally Family Ct. Act § 652[a] ; Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 172–173, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260 [1982] ). The visitation order adequately dealt with the father's failure to confirm visitation with the mother in advance by allowing her to cancel the visit in those circumstances. Although the father violated the visitation order when he picked up the child from school instead of the police precinct, it appears that the father's actions were caused by the mother's own failure to timely bring the child to the precinct. The father's failure to consistently exercise visitation and his somewhat combative demeanor in the Family Court are not extraordinary and there is no indication that those actions affected the child negatively.
The remainder of the mother's arguments regarding change in circumstances are not preserved for appellate review (see Matter of Christina T. v. Thomas C.T., 173 A.D.3d 614, 101 N.Y.S.3d 593 [1st Dept. 2019] ) and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that although the mother showed that the father's actions were negatively affecting her, she did not offer any proof that the visitation order was no longer serving the best interests of the child (see Steck v. Steck, 307 A.D.2d 819, 820, 763 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept. 2003] ).
The court was not required to hold a full evidentiary hearing before dismissing the petition. The court acquired sufficient information to render an informed decision on the child's best interests during the multiple appearances on the petition, and the mother made no showing that would have affected the disposition of her petition (see Matter of Antoine D. v. Kyla Monique P., 168 A.D.3d 476, 89 N.Y.S.3d 620 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 917, 2019 WL 1284650 [2019] ).