Matter of Christopher P. v. Jason Sidney G.

126 A.D.3d 980, 3 N.Y.S.3d 620
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 25, 2015
Docket2014-06377
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 980 (Matter of Christopher P. v. Jason Sidney G.) 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 Christopher P. v. Jason Sidney G., 126 A.D.3d 980, 3 N.Y.S.3d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Mildred T. Negron, Ct. Atty. Ref.), both dated June 5, 2014, made after a hearing. The first order dismissed the petition of Christopher P. and Jessica S. for their appointment as permanent guardians of the person of the subject child. The second order granted the petition of Kevin M. and Laurie V. for their appointment as permanent guardians of the person of the subject child.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants commenced a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, seeking to be appointed permanent guardians of the person of the subject child. Kevin M. and Laurie V. commenced a separate proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, also seeking to be appointed permanent guardians of the person of the subject child. After an extensive hearing, which included the testimony of a court-appointed forensic evaluator, the Family Court dismissed the appellants’ petition and granted the petition of Kevin M. and Laurie V.

When considering guardianship appointments, the child’s best interests are paramount (see SCPA 1707 [1]; Matter of Deven Meza F. [Maria F.—Oneyda M. ], 108 AD3d 701, 702 [2013]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Family Court’s determination that the best interests of the child require his placement in the permanent guardianship of Kevin M. and Laurie V. had a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Roberta W. v Carlton McK, 112 AD3d 729, 730 [2013]; Matter of Deven Meza F., 108 AD3d at 702) and, thus should not be disturbed.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

Eng, P.J., Dillon, Chambers and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Adonnis M. (Kenyetta M.)
2021 NY Slip Op 03322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Charlie RR. (Kimberly QQ.--Scott RR.)
2020 NY Slip Op 08141 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Tabitha T. S. M. (Tracee L. M.--Candace E.)
2018 NY Slip Op 1468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Rebecca B. v. Michael B.
2017 NY Slip Op 5720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D.3d 980, 3 N.Y.S.3d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-christopher-p-v-jason-sidney-g-nyappdiv-2015.