Rose, J.
In April 2001, after a full hearing, Family Court awarded custody of petitioner's son (born in 1989) to respondents, the child's maternal grandparents. The court also granted petitioner, who was then in the Broome County jail pending disposition of certain criminal charges, visitation consisting of two telephone calls per week and unrestricted correspondence. Contending, inter alia, that his February 2002 petition for modification of visitation was improperly dismissed without a hearing, petitioner appeals.
"This Court has routinely held that `in the absence of a substantial change in circumstances, a previous order of custody and/or visitation may not be modified'" (Zindulka v. Zindulka, 284 A.D.2d 631, 632, lv dismissed 96 N.Y.2d 938, quoting Matter of Carnese v. Wiegert, 273 A.D.2d 554, 557). Moreover, to warrant a hearing, the allegation of any such change must include facts reflecting a definite need for modification to ensure the best interest of the child (see Matter of Bishop v. Livingston, 288 A.D.2d 703, 704; Matter of Thompson v. Thompson, 267 A.D.2d 516, 517; see also Matter of Ellor v. Ellor, 221 A.D.2d 886, 887). Here, petitioner alleged as a change in circumstances that he was incarcerated in a state correctional facility and had no visitation with his son. However, he failed to allege any reason why the change in the location of his incarceration prevented him from exercising visitation by telephone and correspondence as permitted by the earlier custody order. Thus, petitioner's allegation of no visitation was simply insufficient to trigger a hearing (see Matter of Audrey K. v. Carolyn L., 294 A.D.2d 624, 624-625).
Nor did Family Court err in failing to advise petitioner of his right to counsel or to appoint a Law Guardian for his son. The obligation to advise a party of his or her right to counsel arises upon the party's appearance in court (see Family Ct Act § 262), which did not occur here (compare Matter of Wilson v. Bennett, 282 A.D.2d 933, 934). Finally, as the petition was dismissed for evidentiary insufficiency, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint a Law Guardian for the parties' child (see Family Ct Act § 249 [a]; Zindulka v. Zindulka, supra at 632; Matter of Ellor v. Ellor, supra at 887).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Kane, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.