Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for a hearing on the plaintiffs motion to modify the visitation provisions of the parties' stipulation of settlement.
A custody or visitation order may be modified only "upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change of circumstances and modification is required" (Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380-381). The paramount concern in any custody or visitation determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of the circumstances ( see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d at 380-381; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 96; Messinger v Messinger, 16 AD3d 562, 563).
Here, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiffs motion without conducting a full evidentiary hearing as to whether her request for increased visitation was in the best interests of the subject child ( see Matter of Richard W. v Maribel G., 78 AD3d 480; Ingarra v Ingarra, 271 AD2d 573, 574; Matter of Madalyn R. v New York City Commr. of Social Servs., 242 AD2d 574). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for a hearing on the plaintiffs motion.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.