Family Court erred in modifying the March 17, 2009 order of visitation without first conducting a full evidentiary hearing to ascertain the child's best interests ( see Matter of Gross v Gross, 7 AD3d 711) and to determine whether there had been a subsequent change in circumstances ( see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375). Additionally, there was no petition for modification of the visitation provisions of the prior order properly before the court ( see Matter of Nakis-Batos v Nakis, 191 AD2d 443).
Family Court also erred by failing to determine whether it had exclusive continuing jurisdiction (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a; see Stocker v Sheehan, 13 AD3d 1), and the court should do so upon remand. Similarly, it was improper to refer "subsequent issues regarding custody and visitation" to Pennsylvania. Indeed, such a determination must await an actual controversy ( Matter of King v King, 251 AD2d 1028).
The court should have advised the parties of the right to counsel, which would have included the right for an adjournment if necessary to consult with a lawyer.