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, New York, for appellant.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Janet
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