In re Tiffany Nicole L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tiffany Nicole L.

287 A.D.2d 717, 732 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10079

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

DecidedOctober 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 717 (In re Tiffany Nicole L.) 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

In re Tiffany Nicole L., 287 A.D.2d 717, 732 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article [718]*7186, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated July 31, 1997, which denied her custody of the minor child and granted guardianship of the child to the petitioner paternal grandmother.

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

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court properly determined that extraordinary circumstances existed (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543; Matter of Bannister v Bannister, 81 AD2d 913). The court properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by granting guardianship to the petitioner (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, supra, at 551-552; Matter of Banks v Banks, 285 AD2d 686). Krausman, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article [718]*7186, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated July 31, 1997, which denied her custody of the minor child and granted guardianship of the child to the petitioner paternal grandmother.

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

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court properly determined that extraordinary circumstances existed (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543; Matter of Bannister v Bannister, 81 AD2d 913). The court properly determined that the best interests of the child would be served by granting guardianship to the petitioner (see, Matter of Louise E. S. v W. Stephen S., 64 NY2d 946; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, supra, at 551-552; Matter of Banks v Banks, 285 AD2d 686). Krausman, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 717, 732 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tiffany-nicole-l-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack