IN RE: HARRY P. (2008)

 Contrary to the contentions of petitioner father, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for leave to amend his petition seeking modification of a prior custody order and in sua sponte dismissing the petition.   The petition “was insufficient on its face because it failed to allege good cause for modification of the prior order” (Matter of Carrie F. v. David PP., 34 A.D.3d 1108, 1110, 825 N.Y.S.2d 791).   Indeed, the father's attorney acknowledged at the appearance on the petition that it failed to contain the necessary allegations of a change in circumstances to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Hongach v. Hongach, 44 A.D.3d 664, 841 N.Y.S.2d 888), and we agree with the court that the proposed amendments to the petition would not have rendered it facially sufficient to warrant a hearing (see generally Letterman v. Reddington, 278 A.D.2d 868, 718 N.Y.S.2d 503).   The father's remaining contentions are based on facts outside the record on appeal, and we therefore do not consider them (see generally Matter of Sarah G., 11 A.D.3d 976, 782 N.Y.S.2d 883).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: