Strachan v. Gilliam

• Decision Date: 19 June 2015
• Docket Number: 799 CAF 14-00688
• Citation: 12 N.Y.S.3d 424,129 A.D.3d 1679,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05370
• Parties: In the Matter of Delsenior STRACHAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Linda GILLIAM, Respondent–Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

129 A.D.3d 1679

12 N.Y.S.3d 424

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05370

In the Matter of Delsenior STRACHAN, Petitioner–Appellant

v.Linda GILLIAM, Respondent–Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.).

799 CAF 14-00688

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

June 19, 2015.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (David R. Juergens of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant.

Paul B. Watkins, Fairport, for Respondent–Respondent.

Sara E. Rook, Attorney for the Child, Rochester.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.

OpinionMEMORANDUM:

In appeal Nos. 1 and 2, petitioner mother appeals from orders that dismissed her petitions seeking to modify a prior order of visitation. Contrary to the mother's contention in both appeals, we conclude that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte dismissing the petitions without conducting a hearing. “A hearing is not automatically required whenever a parent seeks modification of a custody [or visitation] order ... and, here, the mother failed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to require a hearing” (Matter of Consilio v. Terrigino, 114 A.D.3d 1248, 1248, 980 N.Y.S.2d 854 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Sierak v. Staring, 124 A.D.3d 1397, 1398, 1 N.Y.S.3d 696 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.