Majority
Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Joan S. Posner, J.), dated January 21, 2016. The order dismissed, without a hearing, the father’s petition to modify the visitation provisions of an order of that court dated June 17, 2013.
Ordered that the order dated January 21, 2016, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
By order dated June 17, 2013, entered on consent, the father’s visitation with the parties’ son was suspended. The father moved to vacate that order, and also filed a petition to modify its visitation provisions. In orders dated September 4, 2013, and November 19, 2013, respectively, the Family Court
Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to hold a hearing prior to dismissing the petition. The facts alleged in the petition were insufficient to meet the threshold evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Scott v Powell, 146 AD3d 964 [2017]; Matter of Paulino v Thompson, 145 AD3d 726 , 726-727 [2016]; Matter of Rogan v Guida, 143 AD3d 830 , 831 [2016]).
The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Richmond v. Perez 122 AD3d 928 p. 905
- Scott v. Powell 146 AD3d 964 p. 905
- Paulino v. Thompson 145 AD3d 726 at 726-727 p. 905
- Rogan v. Guida 143 AD3d 830 at 831 p. 905