Carosi v. Bloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carosi v. Bloom

225 A.D.2d 692, 639 N.Y.2d 486, 639 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2630

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 692 (Carosi v. Bloom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carosi v. Bloom, 225 A.D.2d 692, 639 N.Y.2d 486, 639 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

A natural parent may not be deprived of custody of his or her child absent "surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances” (Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544; see, Matter of Male Infant L., 61 NY2d 420). If such extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must determine the best interests of the child in awarding custody (see, Matter of Male Infant L., supra). Here, prior findings of sexual abuse and neglect against the appellant father supported the Family Court’s finding that extraordinary circumstances were present. Further, in light of these extraordinary circumstances, the court’s award of custody to the petitioners, who are the grandparents of the subject child, was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Antoinette M. v Paul Seth G., 202 AD2d 429). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Hart, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A natural parent may not be deprived of custody of his or her child absent "surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances” (Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544; see, Matter of Male Infant L., 61 NY2d 420). If such extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must determine the best interests of the child in awarding custody (see, Matter of Male Infant L., supra). Here, prior findings of sexual abuse and neglect against the appellant father supported the Family Court’s finding that extraordinary circumstances were present. Further, in light of these extraordinary circumstances, the court’s award of custody to the petitioners, who are the grandparents of the subject child, was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Antoinette M. v Paul Seth G., 202 AD2d 429). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 692, 639 N.Y.2d 486, 639 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carosi-v-bloom-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack