Griffin v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Griffin v. Griffin

117 A.D.3d 1570, 985 N.Y.S.2d 393

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

DecidedMay 9, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 1570 (Griffin v. Griffin) 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

Griffin v. Griffin, 117 A.D.3d 1570, 985 N.Y.S.2d 393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Paul G. Buchanan, J.), entered September 7, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted sole custody of respondent’s children to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the petition.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting sole custody of the subject children to petitioner, a nonparent, respondent mother contends that Family Court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist and, if so, to determine the best interests of the children. We agree, and we therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for the requisite evidentiary hearing. It is well settled that, “as between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of ‘surrender, abandonment, [1571]*1571persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances’ ” (Matter of Gary G. v Roslyn P., 248 AD2d 980, 981 [1998], quoting Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544 [1976]). “ ‘[T]he nonparent has the burden of proving that extraordinary circumstances exist, and until such circumstances are shown, the court does not reach the issue of the best interests of the child[ren]’ ” (Matter of Ruggieri v Bryan, 23 AD3d 991, 992 [2005]). Here, the court “deprived a biological parent of custody of [her] child[ren] without the . . . [requisite evidentiary] hearing” on the issues of extraordinary circumstances and best interests (Matter of Stiles v Orshal, 290 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]). Instead of conducting the hearing on the date it was to begin, the court asked the parents what witnesses would be called on their behalf. When the parents responded that they would be testifying but had no other witnesses, the court stated that it found no triable issues of fact and granted the nonparent’s petition for custody. Thus, the court failed to place the burden of proof on the nonparent to prove that extraordinary circumstances exist. Finally, we note that the home study on which the court relied was potentially out of date when the court granted the petition.

Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Paul G. Buchanan, J.), entered September 7, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted sole custody of respondent’s children to petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the petition.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order granting sole custody of the subject children to petitioner, a nonparent, respondent mother contends that Family Court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist and, if so, to determine the best interests of the children. We agree, and we therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for the requisite evidentiary hearing. It is well settled that, “as between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of ‘surrender, abandonment, [1571]*1571persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances’ ” (Matter of Gary G. v Roslyn P., 248 AD2d 980, 981 [1998], quoting Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544 [1976]). “ ‘[T]he nonparent has the burden of proving that extraordinary circumstances exist, and until such circumstances are shown, the court does not reach the issue of the best interests of the child[ren]’ ” (Matter of Ruggieri v Bryan, 23 AD3d 991, 992 [2005]). Here, the court “deprived a biological parent of custody of [her] child[ren] without the . . . [requisite evidentiary] hearing” on the issues of extraordinary circumstances and best interests (Matter of Stiles v Orshal, 290 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]). Instead of conducting the hearing on the date it was to begin, the court asked the parents what witnesses would be called on their behalf. When the parents responded that they would be testifying but had no other witnesses, the court stated that it found no triable issues of fact and granted the nonparent’s petition for custody. Thus, the court failed to place the burden of proof on the nonparent to prove that extraordinary circumstances exist. Finally, we note that the home study on which the court relied was potentially out of date when the court granted the petition.

Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 1570, 985 N.Y.S.2d 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-griffin-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack