Sandra C. v. Enrique M. — 92 A.D.3d 577

Majority

p. 577

In the Matter of Sandra C., Appellant, v Enrique M., Respondent.

[938 NYS2d 796]

Family Court erred in modifying the May 24, 2010 order of

p. 578

visitation without first conducting a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether there had been a subsequent change in circumstances and whether modification was in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Santiago v Halbal, 88 AD3d 616 [2011]; Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]). Moreover, the court lacked the authority to condition the mother’s continued visitation upon her undergoing therapy (Schneider v Schneider, 127 AD2d 491 , 495 [1987], affd on other grounds sub nom. Paul B.S. v Pamela J.S., 70 NY2d 739 [1987]; Matter of Smith v Dawn F.B., 88 AD3d 729 , 730 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 855 [2011]; Matter of Saggese v Steinmetz, 83 AD3d 1144 , 1145 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 708 [2011]; Matter of Vieira v Huff, 83 AD3d 1520 , 1522 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Catterson, Renwick, AbdusSalaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cases cited

Schneider v. Schneider 127 AD2d 491 N.Y. App. Div. 1987-02-17 at 495 p. 578
Paul B. S. v. Pamela J. S. 70 NY2d 739 N.Y. 1987-09-17 p. 578
Smith v. Dawn F.B. 88 AD3d 729 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-10-04 at 730 p. 578
Yan Ping Xu v. City of New York 18 NY3d 855 N.Y. 2011-12-20 p. 578
Saggese v. Steinmetz 83 AD3d 1144 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-04-07 at 1145 p. 578
Vieira v. Huff 83 AD3d 1520 N.Y. App. Div. 2011-04-29 at 1522 p. 578