IN RE: Giovanni COPLIN (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Rachel E. Tanguay, J.), entered July 5, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, without a hearing, granted that branch of the mother's motion which was to dismiss the father's petition to modify an order of the same court (Dean Richardson–Mendelson, Ct. Atty. Ref.) entered April 26, 2019, so as to award him parental access with the parties' child, and dismissed the petition.

ORDERED that the order entered July 5, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The father and the mother have one child together, born in 2014.  In an order entered April 26, 2019 (hereinafter the April 2019 order), the Family Court awarded the mother sole legal and residential custody of the parties' child, terminated the father's parental access, and directed that there be no contact between the father and the child.  The father commenced this proceeding to modify the April 2019 order so as to award him parental access.  The mother moved, inter alia, to dismiss the petition on the ground that the allegations in the petition were insufficient to establish a prima facie case of a change in circumstances.  In an order entered July 5, 2024, the court, without a hearing, among other things, granted that branch of the mother's motion and dismissed the petition.  The father appeals.

“In order to modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a subsequent change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of Jones v Jones, 231 AD3d 829, 830 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  “Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessary in determining whether a modification of visitation is warranted” (Matter of Castagnini v Hyman–Hunt, 123 AD3d 926, 926).  However, “[t]he party seeking modification is not automatically entitled to a hearing but must make some evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing” (Matter of Chichra v Chichra, 148 AD3d 883, 884;  see Matter of Jones v Jones, 231 AD3d at 830).  “Conclusory and nonspecific allegations relating to a change in circumstances are insufficient to justify a hearing on the issue of whether a change in custody would be in the best interests of the child” (Matter of Wagner v Del Valle, 221 AD3d 1017, 1018 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Here, the Family Court properly granted that branch of the mother's motion which was to dismiss the petition, without a hearing, as the father failed to make an evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances demonstrating a need to conduct a hearing into whether a modification was required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Jones v Jones, 231 AD3d at 830;  Matter of Li Wong v Fen Liu, 159 AD3d 823, 824).  The father's release from prison and the expiration of an order of protection against the father did not constitute changes in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing because neither his incarceration nor the order of protection was the basis for his parental access being terminated.

The father's contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that his compliance with drug testing constituted a change in circumstances is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Zyirr J. [Michael A.], 191 AD3d 784, 785).

The parties' remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.

BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.