IN RE: Mark MENNUTI (2009)

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, to modify the visitation provisions of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated November 1, 2007, the father appeals from an order of the same court dated April 15, 2008, which, without a hearing, dismissed the petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing, without a hearing, his petition, inter alia, to modify an existing order of visitation (see Matter of Walberg v. Rudden, 14 A.D.3d 572, 787 N.Y.S.2d 666;  Matter of Blake v. Vilbig, 288 A.D.2d 470, 733 N.Y.S.2d 892;  Matter of Milhollen v. Voelpel, 270 A.D.2d 422, 705 N.Y.S.2d 259).   A person who seeks to modify an existing order of visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Walberg v. Rudden, 14 A.D.3d at 572, 787 N.Y.S.2d 666;  Matter of Steinharter v. Steinharter, 11 A.D.3d 471, 782 N.Y.S.2d 372;  Matter of Timson v. Timson, 5 A.D.3d 691, 774 N.Y.S.2d 751;  Matter of Blake v. Vilbig, 288 A.D.2d at 470, 733 N.Y.S.2d 892).   Here, the father failed to allege or provide any evidence of a subsequent change of circumstances which would warrant a hearing on the issue of increased visitation (see Matter of Potente v. Wasilewski, 51 A.D.3d 675, 676, 857 N.Y.S.2d 658;  Matter of Hongach v. Hongach, 44 A.D.3d 664, 841 N.Y.S.2d 888;  Matter of Timson v. Timson, 5 A.D.3d 691, 774 N.Y.S.2d 751).   Moreover, the Family Court was fully familiar with relevant background facts regarding the parties and the child based on several prior proceedings (see Matter of Pignataro v. Davis, 8 A.D.3d 487, 778 N.Y.S.2d 528;  Matter of Hom v. Zullo, 6 A.D.3d 536, 775 N.Y.S.2d 66;  Matter of Smith v. Molody-Smith, 307 A.D.2d 364, 762 N.Y.S.2d 818).

The father's remaining contention is not properly before this Court (see CPLR 5501).