Matter of Santiago v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Santiago v. Henderson

122 A.D.3d 866, 996 N.Y.S.2d 686

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2014

Docket2013-11175

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 866 (Matter of Santiago v. Henderson) 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 Santiago v. Henderson, 122 A.D.3d 866, 996 N.Y.S.2d 686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 30, 2013, which, without a hearing, granted the father’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of standing.

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

“As between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances” (Matter of Wilson v Smith, 24 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]; see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]; Matter of Barcellos v Warren-Kidd, 57 AD3d 984, 985 [2008]; Matter of Hyde v King, 47 AD3d 813 [2008]; Matter of Bermeo v Rios, 33 AD3d 613 [2006]; Matter of Dungee v Simmons, 307 AD2d 312 [2003]). *867 The burden of proof is on the nonparent to prove such extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of Tristram K., 25 AD3d 222, 226 [2005]). Absent proof of such extraordinary circumstances, an inquiry into the best interests of the child is not triggered (see Matter of Dungee v Simmons, 307 AD2d at 312-313). Here, the Family Court properly determined that the nonparent petitioners, whose petition to adopt the subject child was correctly denied (see Matter of Baby Girl N. [Milagros S.— Leeanders H.], 122 AD3d 858 [2014] [decided herewith]), failed, in this custody proceeding, to allege the existence of extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the father’s motion to dismiss their custody petition for lack of standing (see Matter of Marquis B. v Alexis H., 110 AD3d 790 [2013]; see also Matter of Andracchi v Reetz, 106 AD3d 734 [2013]; Matter of Lampitt v Lampitt, 103 AD3d 897 [2013]; Matter of Brown v Zuzierla, 73 AD3d 765 [2010]).

Dillon, J.E, Chambers, Cohen and Maltese, JJ, concur.

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

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated October 30, 2013, which, without a hearing, granted the father’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of standing.

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

“As between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances” (Matter of Wilson v Smith, 24 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]; see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]; Matter of Barcellos v Warren-Kidd, 57 AD3d 984, 985 [2008]; Matter of Hyde v King, 47 AD3d 813 [2008]; Matter of Bermeo v Rios, 33 AD3d 613 [2006]; Matter of Dungee v Simmons, 307 AD2d 312 [2003]). *867 The burden of proof is on the nonparent to prove such extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of Tristram K., 25 AD3d 222, 226 [2005]). Absent proof of such extraordinary circumstances, an inquiry into the best interests of the child is not triggered (see Matter of Dungee v Simmons, 307 AD2d at 312-313). Here, the Family Court properly determined that the nonparent petitioners, whose petition to adopt the subject child was correctly denied (see Matter of Baby Girl N. [Milagros S.— Leeanders H.], 122 AD3d 858 [2014] [decided herewith]), failed, in this custody proceeding, to allege the existence of extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the father’s motion to dismiss their custody petition for lack of standing (see Matter of Marquis B. v Alexis H., 110 AD3d 790 [2013]; see also Matter of Andracchi v Reetz, 106 AD3d 734 [2013]; Matter of Lampitt v Lampitt, 103 AD3d 897 [2013]; Matter of Brown v Zuzierla, 73 AD3d 765 [2010]).

Dillon, J.E, Chambers, Cohen and Maltese, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 866, 996 N.Y.S.2d 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-santiago-v-henderson-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack