Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Family Court properly dismissed, without a hearing, the mother's petition for custody of the subject child or expanded visitation rights with respect to the subject child ( see Matter of Mattie M. v Administration for Children's Servs., 48 AD3d 392; Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11 AD3d 471). "`Modification of an existing custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child'" ( Matter of Riedel v Riedel, 61 AD3d 979, quoting Matter of Molinari v Tuthill, 59 AD3d 722, 723; see Matter of Gurewich v Gurewich, 58 AD3d 628). A person seeking a change in visitation or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing ( see Matter of Riedel v Riedel, 61 AD3d at 979; Matter of Gurewich v Gurewich, 58 AD3d at 629).
Here, the mother failed to make such a showing ( see Matter of Bauman v Abbate, 48 AD3d 679, 680; Matter of Mattie M. v Administration for Children's Servs., 48 AD3d 392; Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11 AD3d 471). The mother's assertions were largely unsubstantiated or conclusory ( see Matter of Blackstock v Price, 51 AD3d 914, 915; Matter of El-Sheemy v El-Sheemy, 35 AD3d 738, 739; Nash v Yablon-Nash, 16 AD3d 471).