Sullivan v. Moore

• Decision Date: 23 May 2012
• Citation: 95 A.D.3d 1223,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04015,944 N.Y.S.2d 641
• Parties: In the Matter of Thomas P. SULLIVAN III, respondent, v. Melissa MOORE, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

95 A.D.3d 1223

944 N.Y.S.2d 641

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04015

In the Matter of Thomas P. SULLIVAN III, respondent,

v.Melissa MOORE, appellant.

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

May 23, 2012.

Del Bello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Faith G. Miller and Evan Wiederkehr of counsel), for appellant.

Dina S. Kaplan, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.

Eve Bunting–Smith, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the children.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), dated November 7, 2011, which temporarily granted, without a hearing, the father's application for supervised visitation with the parties' children pending the final outcome of the proceedings. By decision and order on motion dated December 22, 2011, this Court stayed enforcement of the order pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, to be conducted forthwith.

“An order affecting visitation, like an order modifying custody, must be addressed solely to the infant's best interests” ( Kresnicka v. Kresnicka, 48 A.D.2d 929, 929, 369 N.Y.S.2d 522;see Matter of Leichter–Kessler v. Kessler, 71 A.D.3d 1148, 897 N.Y.S.2d 639;Hizme v. Hizme, 212 A.D.2d 580, 622 N.Y.S.2d 737). “Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding a modification of visitation” (Matter of Jeffers v. Hicks, 67 A.D.3d 800, 801, 888 N.Y.S.2d 593;see Matter of Perez v. Sepulveda, 51 A.D.3d 673, 857 N.Y.S.2d 659). However, “[a] party seeking a change in visitation or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing” (Matter of Leichter–Kessler v. Kessler, 71 A.D.3d at 1149, 897 N.Y.S.2d 639;see Matter of Grant v. Hunter, 64 A.D.3d 779, 884 N.Y.S.2d 763;Matter of Grassi v. Grassi, 28 A.D.3d 482, 812 N.Y.S.2d 638). “[A] hearing will not be necessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the child's best interest” (Matter of Hom v. Zullo, 6 A.D.3d 536, 536, 775 N.Y.S.2d 66;see Matter of Jeffers v. Hicks, 67 A.D.3d 800, 888 N.Y.S.2d 593).

Here, the father...