Karen D. v. Florence D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karen D. v. Florence D.

210 A.D.2d 165, 620 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13041

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 165 (Karen D. v. Florence D.) 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

Karen D. v. Florence D., 210 A.D.2d 165, 620 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Philip C. Segal, J.), entered January 3, 1992, which, inter alia, after a hearing, awarded custody of petitioner’s [166]*166child to respondent grandmother and liberal visitation to the petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly determined that respondent maternal grandmother demonstrated the existence of extraordinary circumstances which would drastically affect the welfare of the child were the natural parent to obtain custody (Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 546, 549). The record reveals that petitioner voluntarily left her son in the custody of his grandmother, with whom he has lived his entire life, without any notice and without making any provision for his care. During the three year period she resided elsewhere, she visited sporadically. According to a psychiatrist and the child himself, his grandmother is his primary caretaker, to whom he is very attached, which provided ample support for the court’s determination. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.,

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

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Philip C. Segal, J.), entered January 3, 1992, which, inter alia, after a hearing, awarded custody of petitioner’s [166]*166child to respondent grandmother and liberal visitation to the petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly determined that respondent maternal grandmother demonstrated the existence of extraordinary circumstances which would drastically affect the welfare of the child were the natural parent to obtain custody (Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 546, 549). The record reveals that petitioner voluntarily left her son in the custody of his grandmother, with whom he has lived his entire life, without any notice and without making any provision for his care. During the three year period she resided elsewhere, she visited sporadically. According to a psychiatrist and the child himself, his grandmother is his primary caretaker, to whom he is very attached, which provided ample support for the court’s determination. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Tom, JJ.,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 165, 620 N.Y.S.2d 358, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karen-d-v-florence-d-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack