Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: SAMUEL A., Petitioner–Appellant, v. AIDARINA S., Respondent–Respondent.

Decided: October 02, 2012

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ. Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, for respondent.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez–Perez, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2011, which dismissed petitioner father's petition to modify custody and visitation, and order, same court, Judge and entry date, which suspended petitioner's visitation with the subject children until he discloses to the mother where the children are being taken during weekend visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Family Court properly declined to conduct a full evidentiary hearing with respect to the petition, as petitioner failed to make any showing that modification of the custody and visitation order is warranted on the grounds alleged in the petition (Matter of Patricia C. v. Bruce L., 46 A.D.3d 399, 848 N.Y.S.2d 102 [1st Dept.2007];  David W. v. Julia W., 158 A.D.2d 1, 6–7, 557 N.Y.S.2d 314 [1st Dept.1990] ).   Indeed, petitioner admitted that he had failed to visit with the children for at least five months, and there is no indication that joint custody is in the best interests of the children, particularly given the acrimonious relationship between the parties.

 Family Court properly suspended petitioner's visitation until he reveals to the mother where he takes the children during visitation, as petitioner disregarded the court's direct order to reveal that information during the hearing on his petition.   Under these exceptional circumstances, petitioner has forfeited his right to visitation (see Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170, 175, 436 N.Y.S.2d 862, 418 N.E.2d 377 [1981] ).