Opinion
No. 2753 Index Nos. V-03172/21 V-03465/21 V-03173/21 V-03439/21 V-03468/21 Case No. 2023-06674
10-08-2024
In the Matter of Lillette T., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Simone G., Respondent-Appellant, Aaron M., Respondent-Respondent. In the Matter of Lillette T., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Simone G., Respondent-Appellant, Tevin T., Respondent.
Larry Bachner, New York, for appellant. Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for Lillette T., respondent. Daniel P. Moskowitz, Jamaica, for Aaron M., respondent. Law office of Bryan Greenberg, LLC, New York (Bryan Greenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
Larry Bachner, New York, for appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for Lillette T., respondent.
Daniel P. Moskowitz, Jamaica, for Aaron M., respondent.
Law office of Bryan Greenberg, LLC, New York (Bryan Greenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Singh, Mendez, Rosado, O'Neill Levy, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2023, which, upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances following hearings, determined that it would be in the best interests of the younger child to award primary physical and sole legal custody to the grandmother, and that it was in the best interests of the older child to award primary physical custody to the father and joint legal custody to the father and the grandmother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner established the requisite extraordinary circumstances to warrant being granted custody of her grandchildren following a domestic violence incident involving the mother and the mother's wife (see Matter of Suarez v Williams, 26 N.Y.3d 440, 449-450 [2015]; see also Lori MM. v Amanda NN., 75 A.D.3d 774, 775 [3d Dept 2010]). Both children had lived with the grandmother since they were born, and she provided for all their basic needs, enrolled them in school, and took them to their medical appointments (see Roberta P. v Vanessa J.P., 140 A.D.3d 457, 457 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 904 [2016]). Family Court also properly considered the mother's insistence on maintaining a relationship with her wife, despite a history of domestic violence, and the mother's decision to bring the children around the wife in violation of Family Court's prior orders and the children's own wishes (see e.g. Matter of Turner v Maiden, 70 A.D.3d 1214 [3d Dept 2010]).
There is no basis to disturb Family Court's best interests determinations (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173-174 [1982]; Matter of David H. v Khalima H., 111 A.D.3d 544, 545 [1st Dept 2013], lv dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 1149 [2014]). The court properly considered the totality of the circumstances and concluded that the best interests of the younger child would be served if she were to remain with the grandmother, who had been her primary caretaker since birth (see Roberta P., 140 A.D.3d 457). As for the older child, Family Court properly determined that the father provided her with a stable home and, with the help of his supportive family, he could meet her financial, educational, and emotional needs (see Matter of Errol S. v Shelidah D., 103 A.D.3d 597, 597-598 [1st Dept 2013]). Family Court also gave sufficient weight to the children's individual wishes in determining what was in their best interests (see Melissa C.D. v Rene I.D., Jr., 117 A.D.3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2014]).