Whitter v. Ramroop
Whitter v Ramroop
2012
NY Slip Op 02392
Decided
on March 29, 2012
Appellate
Division, First Department
Published
by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This
opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the
Official Reports.
Decided
on March 29, 2012
Mazzarelli,
J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz,
Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
7220
[*1]In
re Derek J. Whitter, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, ——
v
Susan Ramroop,
Respondent-Respondent.
Janet
A. Bastawros,
George E. Reed, Jr.,
Karen
P. Simmons, The Children's
Neustaetter
of counsel), attorney for the child.
Order,
Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about October 29,
2010, which, inter alia, denied petitioner father's petition for modification
of a custody order entered in New Jersey awarding custody of the subject child
to respondent maternal grandmother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The
petition was properly denied without a hearing since the father failed to make
the requisite evidentiary showing of changed circumstances requiring a
modification to protect the continued best interests of the child (see Matter
of Patricia C. v Bruce L., 46 AD3d 399 [2007]). The alleged changes in
circumstances included, inter alia, that the maternal grandmother was facing
criminal charges for theft. However, such charges do not provide a basis for
modification of the custody order, as they were pending for more than five
years, and were based on allegations from petitioner that the grandmother stole
from him while he was incarcerated (see People v Cook, 37 NY2d 591, 596 [1975]
["(t)he mere fact that a person has been
previously charged or accused has no probative value"]).
We
have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS
CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF
THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED:
MARCH 29, 2012
CLERK