Walberg v. Rudden
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Getreu v. Bossert (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Collazo v. Collazo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Mennuti v. Berry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Reilly v. Reilly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Matter of Moreno v. Elliott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Richard K.H. v. Emilie P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Castagnini v. Hyman-Hunt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Figueroa v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Chrysler v. Fabian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Varricchio v. Varricchio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Potente v. Wasilewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Hongach v. Hongach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Sitzer v. Fay (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), entered April 29, 2003, which, without a hearing, granted the father’s motion to dismiss the petition and dismissed the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court properly dismissed, without a hearing, her petition to modify an existing order which suspended her visitation with her child (see Matter of Blake v Vilbig, 288 AD2d 470 [2001]; Matter of Milhollen v Voelpel, 270 AD2d 422 [2000]). One who seeks to modify an existing order of visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing (see Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11 AD3d 471 [2004]; Matter of Timson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691 [2004]; Matter of Blake v Vilbig, supra; Matter of Milhollen v Voelpel, supra; Matter of Rosenberg v Rosenberg, 261 AD2d 623 [1999]). The mother’s allegations, even if true, would not give rise to finding of a change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior order.
Moreover, the Family Court was fully familiar with relevant background facts regarding the parties and the child from several past proceedings without the need for a further hearing (see Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487, 488 [2004]; Matter of Horn v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536 [2004]; Matter of Smith v Molody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364 [2003]).
The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.