Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly, in effect, denied, without a hearing, those branches of his petition and separate motion which were to modify a prior order of custody and visitation. One who seeks to modify an existing order of custody and visitation is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make some evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing ( see Matter of Goldberg v Goldberg, 300 AD2d 585; David W. v Julia W., 158 AD2d 1 ). Here, the father failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate a change of circumstances which would warrant a hearing on those branches of his petition and separate motion which were to modify a prior order of custody and visitation.
Moreover, while public policy mandates free access to the courts, "when a litigant is `abusing the judicial process by hagriding individuals solely out of ill will or spite, equity may enjoin such vexatious litigation'" ( Matter of Shreve v Shreve, 229 AD2d 1005, 1006, quoting Sassower v Signorelli, 99 AD2d 358, 359). Here, the Family Court properly directed the father to seek permission of the court before re-filing any petitions or motions ( see Matter of Kevin W. v Monique T., 38 AD3d 672, 673; Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487, 489; Matter of Manwani v Manwani, 286 AD2d 767, 768-769).
The father's remaining contentions are without merit.