Flores v. Flores

91 A.D.3d 869, 936 N.Y.2d 676
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 24, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 869 (Flores v. Flores) 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
Flores v. Flores, 91 A.D.3d 869, 936 N.Y.2d 676 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, [870]*870“the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances” (Matter of Dungee v Simmons, 307 AD2d 312, 312-313 [2003] ; see Matter of Ruiz v Travis, 84 AD3d 1242 [2011]). The burden of establishing the existence of extraordinary circumstances is on the party seeking to deprive the natural parent of custody (see Matter of Cambridge v Cambridge, 13 AD3d 443 [2004] ). Where extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must then consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]; Matter of Wright v Wright, 81 AD3d 740, 741 [2011]).

The Family Court properly determined that the maternal grandmother sustained her burden of demonstrating extraordinary circumstances in this case (see Matter of Brault v Smugorzewski, 68 AD3d 1819 [2009]; Matter of Donohue v Donohue, 44 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2007]; Matter of Scala v Parker, 304 AD2d 858, 859 [2003]). Moreover, the Family Court’s determination that an award of custody to the maternal grandmother would be in the best interests of the subject child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we discern no basis to disturb it (see Matter of Jumper v Hemphill, 75 AD3d 507, 508 [2010]; Matter of LaBorde v Pennington, 60 AD3d 950, 951-952 [2009]). Dillon, J.E, Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Haas-Gatel v. Green
2025 NY Slip Op 05811 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Asharia W. (Maisha H.)
2025 NY Slip Op 00456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Williams v. Frank
2017 NY Slip Op 1702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Negron v. Medina
2016 NY Slip Op 7325 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Mercado v. Smith
133 A.D.3d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Culberson v. Fisher
130 A.D.3d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Jerrina P. (June H.--Shondell N.P.)
126 A.D.3d 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Bailey v. Carr
125 A.D.3d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Diana B. v. Lorry B.
111 A.D.3d 927 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Herrera v. Vallejo
107 A.D.3d 714 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Andracchi v. Reetz
106 A.D.3d 734 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ruiz-Thomas v. Ruiz
96 A.D.3d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 A.D.3d 869, 936 N.Y.2d 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-flores-nyappdiv-2012.