Lucore v. Lucore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lucore v. Lucore

280 A.D.2d 959, 721 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4193

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 959 (Lucore v. Lucore) 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

Lucore v. Lucore, 280 A.D.2d 959, 721 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly awarded custody of two of respondent’s children to petitioner, the children’s grandmother. Petitioner met her burden of establishing the existence of extraordinary circumstances based on respondent’s voluntary relinquishment of the children to petitioner’s care from 1988 until 1996, together with the unstable lifestyle of respondent, the violent and abusive environments created by paramours of respondent, and the attachment of the children to petitioner (see, Matter of Michael G. B. v Angela L. B., 219 AD2d 289, 292-293). Thus, the court properly considered the best interests of the children (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544; see also, Matter of Pamela S. S. v Charles E., 280 AD2d 999 [decided herewith]), and the record supports the court’s determination that the best interests of the children are served by the award of custody to petitioner (see, Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955, 956). We have considered respondent’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, DiFlorio, J.H.O. — Custody.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly awarded custody of two of respondent’s children to petitioner, the children’s grandmother. Petitioner met her burden of establishing the existence of extraordinary circumstances based on respondent’s voluntary relinquishment of the children to petitioner’s care from 1988 until 1996, together with the unstable lifestyle of respondent, the violent and abusive environments created by paramours of respondent, and the attachment of the children to petitioner (see, Matter of Michael G. B. v Angela L. B., 219 AD2d 289, 292-293). Thus, the court properly considered the best interests of the children (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544; see also, Matter of Pamela S. S. v Charles E., 280 AD2d 999 [decided herewith]), and the record supports the court’s determination that the best interests of the children are served by the award of custody to petitioner (see, Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955, 956). We have considered respondent’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, DiFlorio, J.H.O. — Custody.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 959, 721 N.Y.S.2d 207, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucore-v-lucore-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack