Reed v. Crim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reed v. Crim

202 A.D.2d 1018, 609 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3391

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 1018 (Reed v. Crim) 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

Reed v. Crim, 202 A.D.2d 1018, 609 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record supports Family Court’s determination that extraordinary circumstances justified the award of custody of respondent’s son to petitioner, the child’s cousin. The court properly concluded that extraordinary circumstances existed by virtue of several factors (see, [1019]*1019Matter of Hansen v Post, 167 AD2d 702, 703, lv denied 77 NY2d 807). Those factors include the unfortunate disruption of custody caused by respondent’s mental illness (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 549); respondent’s history of unfitness as a parent and neglect of the child (see, Matter of Hansen v Post, supra, at 704; Matter of Callahan v Denton, 114 AD2d 663); and respondent’s recent relapse while on medication (see, Matter of Kreslein v Hanley, 157 AD2d 659). Further, both the Law Guardian and the Probation Department raised serious doubts about respondent’s ability to care for the child and recommended that custody remain with petitioner (see, Matter of Zamoiski v Centeno, 166 AD2d 781, 782, lv denied 77 NY2d 803; Matter of Borst v Borst, 137 AD2d 890, 891). Having found extraordinary circumstances, the court properly awarded custody to petitioner based upon the child’s best interests. (Appeal from Order of Herkimer County Family Court, Kirk, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record supports Family Court’s determination that extraordinary circumstances justified the award of custody of respondent’s son to petitioner, the child’s cousin. The court properly concluded that extraordinary circumstances existed by virtue of several factors (see, [1019]*1019Matter of Hansen v Post, 167 AD2d 702, 703, lv denied 77 NY2d 807). Those factors include the unfortunate disruption of custody caused by respondent’s mental illness (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 549); respondent’s history of unfitness as a parent and neglect of the child (see, Matter of Hansen v Post, supra, at 704; Matter of Callahan v Denton, 114 AD2d 663); and respondent’s recent relapse while on medication (see, Matter of Kreslein v Hanley, 157 AD2d 659). Further, both the Law Guardian and the Probation Department raised serious doubts about respondent’s ability to care for the child and recommended that custody remain with petitioner (see, Matter of Zamoiski v Centeno, 166 AD2d 781, 782, lv denied 77 NY2d 803; Matter of Borst v Borst, 137 AD2d 890, 891). Having found extraordinary circumstances, the court properly awarded custody to petitioner based upon the child’s best interests. (Appeal from Order of Herkimer County Family Court, Kirk, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 1018, 609 N.Y.S.2d 477, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-crim-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack