HARRY v. CINDY

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to the contentions of petitioner father, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for leave to amend his petition seeking modification of a prior custody order and in sua sponte dismissing the petition. The petition "was insufficient on its face because it failed to allege good cause for modification of the prior order" ( Matter of Carrie F. v David PP., 34 AD3d 1108, 1110). Indeed, the father's attorney acknowledged at the appearance on the petition that it failed to contain the necessary allegations of a change in circumstances to warrant a hearing ( see Matter of Hongach v Hongach, 44 AD3d 664), and we agree with the court that the proposed amendments to the petition would not have rendered it facially sufficient to warrant a hearing ( see generally Letterman v Reddington, 278 AD2d 868). The father's remaining contentions are based on facts outside the record on appeal, and we therefore do not consider them ( see generally Matter of Sarah G, 11 AD3d 976).