Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing, without a hearing, his petition, inter alia, to modify an existing order of visitation ( see Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14 AD3d 572; Matter of Blake v Vilbig, 288 AD2d 470; Matter of Milhollen v Voelpel, 270 AD2d 422). A person who seeks to modify an existing order of visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing ( see Matter of Walberg v Rudden, 14 AD3d at 572; Matter of Steinharter v Steinharter, 11 AD3d 471; Matter of Timson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691; Matter of Blake v Vilbig, 288 AD2d at 470). Here, the father failed to allege or provide any evidence of a subsequent change of circumstances which would warrant a hearing on the issue of increased visitation ( see Matter of Potente v Wasilewski, 51 AD3d 675, 676; Matter of Hongach v Hongach, 44 AD3d 664; Matter of Timson v Timson, 5 AD3d 691). Moreover, the Family Court was fully familiar with relevant background facts regarding the parties and the child based on several prior proceedings ( see Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487; Matter of Horn v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536; Matter of Smith v Molody-Smith, 307 AD2d 364).
The father's remaining contention is not properly before this Court ( see CPLR 5501).