Matter of Accime v. Franklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Accime v. Franklin

140 A.D.3d 951, 32 N.Y.S.3d 513

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

DecidedJune 15, 2016

Docket2015-01350

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 951 (Matter of Accime v. Franklin) 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

Matter of Accime v. Franklin, 140 A.D.3d 951, 32 N.Y.S.3d 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (William P. Warren, J.), entered January 6, 2015. The order, after a hearing, denied the paternal grandmother’s petition for custody of the subject child.

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

The subject child was removed from the custody of her parents by the Rockland County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS) almost immediately after her birth and, since that time, has resided with fpster parents. In a separate Family Ceurt Act article 10 preceeding brcught by the DSS against the child’s parents, a finding ef neglect was entered against each parent. The appellant, the child’s paternal grandmother, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 seeking custody of the child. Following a hearing, the Family Court denied the grandmother’s petition. The grandmother appeals.

In adjudicating custody rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2010]). “As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Tori v Tori, 103 AD3d 654, 655 [2013]; see Matter of Sanders v Ballek, 136 AD3d 676 [2016]). Here, contrary to the grandmother’s contentions, under the circumstances presented, the Family Court’s determination denying her petition had a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of McKoy v Vatter, 106 AD3d 1090 [2013]; Matter of Guzman v Pizarro, 102 AD3d 964, 965 [2013]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d at 1017).

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (William P. Warren, J.), entered January 6, 2015. The order, after a hearing, denied the paternal grandmother’s petition for custody of the subject child.

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

The subject child was removed from the custody of her parents by the Rockland County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS) almost immediately after her birth and, since that time, has resided with fpster parents. In a separate Family Ceurt Act article 10 preceeding brcught by the DSS against the child’s parents, a finding ef neglect was entered against each parent. The appellant, the child’s paternal grandmother, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 seeking custody of the child. Following a hearing, the Family Court denied the grandmother’s petition. The grandmother appeals.

In adjudicating custody rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 172 [1982]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2010]). “As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Matter of Tori v Tori, 103 AD3d 654, 655 [2013]; see Matter of Sanders v Ballek, 136 AD3d 676 [2016]). Here, contrary to the grandmother’s contentions, under the circumstances presented, the Family Court’s determination denying her petition had a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of McKoy v Vatter, 106 AD3d 1090 [2013]; Matter of Guzman v Pizarro, 102 AD3d 964, 965 [2013]; Matter of Jules v Corriette, 76 AD3d at 1017).

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 951, 32 N.Y.S.3d 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-accime-v-franklin-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack