MATTER OF MILHOLLEN v. VOELPEL

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother's contention, the Family Court did not err in denying, without a hearing, her application to modify an existing order which granted her supervised visitation with her children (see, Matter of Chaya S. v. Herbert L., 266 A.D.2d 219 [2d Dept., Nov. 1, 1999]; Matter of Coutsoukis v. Samora, 265 A.D.2d 482 [2d Dept., Oct. 18, 1999]; Matter of Gerow v. Gerow, 257 A.D.2d 718 ). One 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 Coutsoukis v. Samora, supra; Matter of Gerow v. Gerow, supra;David W. v. Julia W., 158 A.D.2d 1, 6-7 ). Here, the mother's allegations, even if true, would not give rise to finding of a change in circumstances.

SANTUCCI, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.