Opinion
Nos. 2006-11012, Docket No. V-02772-00.
March 11, 2008.
In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (O'Shea, J.), dated October 16, 2006, as denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for permission to file a petition for change of custody, and (2) stated portions of an order of the same court dated December 11, 2006, which, without a hearing, inter alia, set a visitation schedule for him with the subject child.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, N.Y. (Bahn Herzfeld Multer of counsel), for appellant.
Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), Law Guardian for the child.
Before: Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly denied that branch of the father's motion which was, in effect, for permission to file a petition for a change of custody since the father failed to demonstrate nonfrivolous grounds for such relief ( see Matter of Simpson v Ptaszynska, 41 AD3d 608).
Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court was not required to hold a hearing regarding visitation where he did not request a hearing, and the court had sufficient information to enable it to determine the best interests of the subject child ( see Matter of Razo v Leyva, 3 AD3d 571; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755; Matter of Goldman v Goldman, 201 AD2d 860, 862; Kuleszo v Kuleszo, 59 AD2d 1059, 1060).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.