Lee P.S. v. Lisa L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lee P.S. v. Lisa L.

301 A.D.2d 606, 753 N.Y.S.2d 860

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 606 (Lee P.S. v. Lisa 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

Lee P.S. v. Lisa L., 301 A.D.2d 606, 753 N.Y.S.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Adams, J.), dated May 1, 2002, which, in effect, denied the motion of Lisa L. to dismiss the proceeding for lack of standing.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Family Court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the proceeding. The petitioner does not have standing to seek visitation with the biological child of the appellant, her former domestic partner (see Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., 77 NY2d 651; Matter ofJanis C. v Christine T., 294 AD2d 496, lv denied 99 NY2d 504; Matter of Speed v Robins, 288 AD2d 479).

The petitioner’s constitutional challenge to Domestic Relations Law §§ 70, 71, and 72 is not reviewable as she failed to give timely notice to allow the Attorney General the opportunity to intervene in this proceeding (see Executive Law § 71; CPLR 1012; Matter of McGee v Korman, 70 NY2d 225; Matter of Rivera v Cassas, 275 AD2d 417). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Adams, J.), dated May 1, 2002, which, in effect, denied the motion of Lisa L. to dismiss the proceeding for lack of standing.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The Family Court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the proceeding. The petitioner does not have standing to seek visitation with the biological child of the appellant, her former domestic partner (see Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., 77 NY2d 651; Matter ofJanis C. v Christine T., 294 AD2d 496, lv denied 99 NY2d 504; Matter of Speed v Robins, 288 AD2d 479).

The petitioner’s constitutional challenge to Domestic Relations Law §§ 70, 71, and 72 is not reviewable as she failed to give timely notice to allow the Attorney General the opportunity to intervene in this proceeding (see Executive Law § 71; CPLR 1012; Matter of McGee v Korman, 70 NY2d 225; Matter of Rivera v Cassas, 275 AD2d 417). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 606, 753 N.Y.S.2d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-ps-v-lisa-l-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack