Pryor v. Lindsay

60 A.D.3d 859, 876 N.Y.S.2d 79
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 859 (Pryor v. Lindsay) 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
Pryor v. Lindsay, 60 A.D.3d 859, 876 N.Y.S.2d 79 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In three related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), dated February 21, 2008, which, after a hearing, denied her petitions for custody of her granddaughter.

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

The standard to be applied in a change of custody determination is the best interests of the child (see Matter of Destiny O., 44 AD3d 951, 952 [2007]). “Social Services Law § 383 (3) gives preference for adoption to a foster parent who has cared for a child continuously for a period of 12 months or more, while members of the child’s extended biological family are given no special preference with regard to custody” (Matter of Takylia B., 24 AD3d 759 [2005]; see Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513 [1983]). Thus, a nonparent relative takes no precedence for custody over the adoptive parents selected by an authorized agency (see Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d at 520; Matter of Linda S. v Krishnia S., 50 AD3d 805 [2008]; Matter of Ella J. v Iva J., 4 AD3d 527, 528 [2004]).

Here, the Family Court, in a well-reasoned decision, considered the totality of the circumstances and properly determined that the child’s best interests required continuing custody with the Suffolk County Department of Social Services so that the child could be made available for adoption by the foster mother with whom the child had resided for almost two years. The child had bonded with the foster mother, and was healthy, happy, and well-provided for financially (see Matter of Linda S. v Krishnia S., 50 AD3d at 805; Matter of Destiny O., 44 AD3d at 951; Matter of Takylia B., 24 AD3d at 759; Matter of Ella J. v Iva J., 4 AD3d at 527). Accordingly, the Family Court properly [860]*860denied the maternal grandmother’s custody petitions. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Jose M. F. (Melanie R.--Estilla K.)
2021 NY Slip Op 02522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
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 El v. Administration for Children's Servs.-Queens
2018 NY Slip Op 1466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Patricia I.H. v. ACS-Kings
140 A.D.3d 1165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Amari S.G.E. (Kiona E.)
132 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re Ender M. Z.-P.
109 A.D.3d 834 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Vanisha J.
87 A.D.3d 696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Kareem W. v. Family Focus Adoption Services, Inc.
75 A.D.3d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Chastity Imani Mc.
66 A.D.3d 782 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 A.D.3d 859, 876 N.Y.S.2d 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryor-v-lindsay-nyappdiv-2009.