IN RE: Esya SHIMUNOVA (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the maternal grandmother appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Genevieve Tahang–Behan, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 28, 2025, and (2) an order of dismissal of the same court, also dated March 28, 2025.  The order, without a hearing, granted the father's motion to dismiss the maternal grandmother's petition to modify an order of visitation of the same court dated January 10, 2024.  The order of dismissal dismissed the maternal grandmother's petition with prejudice.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated March 28, 2025, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from a nondispositional order in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, part 3 (see id. § 1112[a] ), and leave to appeal has not been granted;  and it is further,

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

The petitioner is the maternal grandmother of the subject child.  In 2019, the Family Court granted the petition of the maternal grandmother, and another, seeking visitation with the child.  In January 2024, after the parties agreed to a new visitation arrangement, the court entered an order of visitation dated January 10, 2024.  The maternal grandmother thereafter filed a petition seeking to modify the order of visitation dated January 10, 2024, alleging, inter alia, that the father violated the terms of that order.  The father moved to dismiss the petition.  In an order dated March 28, 2025, the court, without a hearing, granted the father's motion.  In an order of dismissal also dated March 28, 2025, the court dismissed the petition.  The maternal grandmother appeals.

In order to modify an existing visitation arrangement, there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child (see Matter of Dubose v. Jackson, 207 AD3d 719, 720;  Matter of Condon v. Verdile, 151 AD3d 849, 850).  “Entitlement to a hearing on a modification petition, however, is not automatic;  the petition[er] ․ must make a threshold evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances demonstrating a need for modification in order to insure the child's best interests” (Matter of Kanganis v. King, 244 AD3d 1124, 1125 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  Here, the maternal grandmother failed to allege any change in circumstances warranting a hearing or modification of the order of visitation dated January 10, 2024 (see id.;  Matter of Seymour v. Raymond, 240 AD3d 501, 502;  Matter of Parascondola v. Romano, 213 AD3d 768, 769–770).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the maternal grandmother's petition without a hearing.

IANNACCI, J.P., DOWLING, WAN and LOVE, JJ., concur.