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: Dariusz Mazurkiewicz, appellant, v. Sylwia Pindor-Mazurkiewicz, respondent.
Submitted-December 6, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Friedman, J.H.O.), dated September 29, 2009, which, without a hearing, inter alia, denied his petition, in effect, to modify visitation as set forth in a stipulation of settlement dated July 3, 2007, which was incorporated but not merged into the parties' judgment of divorce dated March 20, 2008.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court properly denied, without a hearing, his petition, in effect, to modify the visitation provisions of the stipulation of settlement dated July 3, 2007. “Modification of an existing custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child” (Matter of Grant v. Hunter, 64 AD3d 779, 779 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Matter of Riedel v. Riedel, 61 AD3d 979, 979). A person seeking a change in visitation or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler, 71 AD3d 1148, 1149; Matter of Reilly v. Reilly, 64 AD3d 660, 660). Here, the father's assertions were unsubstantiated and conclusory. Accordingly, he failed to make the requisite showing.
The mother's contention that the father should have been ordered to provide her with his mobile telephone number is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Nationwide Ins. Enter. v Harris, 44 AD3d 947, 949; Master-Built Constr. Co., Inc. v Thorne, 22 AD3d 536, 536-537).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., DICKERSON, LOTT and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2009-10181 (Docket No. V-14763-08)
Decided: January 11, 2011
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)