Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Roberto RODRIGUEZ, appellant, v. Diane Adele HANGARTNER, respondent.
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated May 28, 2008, as dismissed, without a hearing, his petition to enforce and modify the visitation provisions of the parties' judgment of divorce entered December 22, 2006.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof dismissing that branch of the petition which was to enforce the visitation provisions of the judgment of divorce; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings thereon.
To modify an order of visitation, there must be a material change of circumstances (see Family Ct. Act § 467[b]; Nash v. Yablon-Nash, 16 A.D.3d 471, 790 N.Y.S.2d 718; Matter of King v. King, 266 A.D.2d 546, 698 N.Y.S.2d 906). A parent seeking a change in visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Gold v. Gold, 53 A.D.3d 485, 861 N.Y.S.2d 748; Matter of Potente v. Wasilewski, 51 A.D.3d 675, 857 N.Y.S.2d 658; Matter of Simpson v. Ptaszynska, 41 A.D.3d 607, 836 N.Y.S.2d 419). The father failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing. Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed that branch of the petition which was to modify the visitation provisions of the judgment of divorce.
However, the petition also sought enforcement of the current visitation provisions of the judgment of divorce. The mother conceded that she did not permit holiday visitation in accordance with the terms of the judgment of divorce. Instead, she relied upon an alleged understanding between the parties to limit such visitation. Accordingly, the Family Court erred in dismissing that branch of the petition which was to enforce the visitation provisions of the judgment of divorce (see Matter of Danvers v. Clarke, 29 A.D.3d 578, 815 N.Y.S.2d 114).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 17, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)