Matter of Ali v. Hines

125 A.D.3d 851, 1 N.Y.S.3d 849
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 2015
Docket2014-01026
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 851 (Matter of Ali v. Hines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Ali v. Hines, 125 A.D.3d 851, 1 N.Y.S.3d 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Nilda Morales-Horowitz, J.), dated December 18, 2013. The order, in effect, denied the mother’s petition to modify a prior order of that court entered August 1, 2012, upon consent, which set forth her visitation with the subject child, and dismissed the proceeding without prejudice.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, she was not entitled to assigned counsel in her capacity as the petitioner in the instant proceeding to modify her visitation with the subject child (see Matter of Perez v Richmond, 104 AD3d 692 [2013]; Matter of Reiss v Giraldo, 77 AD3d 759 [2010]; Matter of Edwards v Cade, 33 AD3d 1087 [2006]). Further, her petition was properly denied without a hearing. “One who seeks a change in custody or visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a material change of circumstances to warrant a hearing” (Matter of Palmiotti v Piscitelli, 100 AD3d 637, 638 [2012]; see Magee *852 v Magee, 119 AD3d 658 [2014]). Here, the petition failed to allege a sufficient change of circumstances between the issuance of the prior order and the filing of the petition (see Matter of Castagnini v Hyman-Hunt, 123 AD3d 926 [2014]). Unsubstantiated and conclusory assertions are insufficient to warrant a hearing.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Blackman v. Barge
2022 NY Slip Op 04544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Johnson v. Watson
158 N.Y.S.3d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Henrie v. Henrie
2018 NY Slip Op 5450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Renee P.-F. v. Frank G.
2018 NY Slip Op 3839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Feliciano v. King
2018 NY Slip Op 2618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Paulino v. Thompson
2016 NY Slip Op 8235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Sumahit v. Gorham
133 A.D.3d 677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Valencia v. Ripley
128 A.D.3d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.3d 851, 1 N.Y.S.3d 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ali-v-hines-nyappdiv-2015.