Opinion
9671
06-20-2019
In re MARIA K., Petitioner–Appellant, v. DIMITRA L., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant. Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for Dimitra L., respondent. The Reiniger Law Firm, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for Christopher B., respondent. Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, attorney for the child Matthew B. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), attorney for the child Zak B.
Carol L. Kahn, New York, for appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for Dimitra L., respondent.
The Reiniger Law Firm, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for Christopher B., respondent.
Tennille M. Tatum–Evans, New York, attorney for the child Matthew B.
Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Jericho (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), attorney for the child Zak B.
Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kahn, Singh, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Carol Goldstein, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner mother's custody modification petition to the extent of directing the children to remain in the primary physical custody of respondent great-grandmother, and awarding the great-grandmother final decision-making responsibilities in the event of a dispute with the mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court's determination, after a hearing, that it was in the best interests of the subject children to remain in the physical custody of their maternal great-grandmother, and awarding her final decision making authority in the event of a dispute with the mother, has a sound and substantial basis in the record ( Matter of Reeva A.C. v. Richard C., 84 A.D.3d 521, 921 N.Y.S.2d 857 [1st Dept. 2011] ; Matter of China S. [Tonia J.-Levon S.], 77 A.D.3d 568, 912 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 2010] ). The record shows that the great-grandmother provided a stable and nurturing home for the children and they received consistent good care living with her. The mother has not cared for the children since 2008, and she has a less stable housing history, having moved three times, in two years, since relocating to New Hampshire. The mother has only recently obtained a steady job, and has no feasible plan for the children's relocation to rural New Hampshire or appropriate concern for the impact the move would have on the children, who would be uprooted them from their school and community in New York City, where they have regular access to their father, grandmother and extended family.
The mother's contention that she was deprived of a fair hearing by the Family Court's failure to obtain medical records and conduct an updated forensic evaluation is unpreserved for appellate review because she did not make requests for reports or an updated evaluation at any point during the proceedings ( Matter of Bailey v. Carr, 125 A.D.3d 853, 4 N.Y.S.3d 121 [2d Dept. 2015] ). In any event, the Family Court possessed sufficient information to enable it to render its determination and the mother was not deprived of a fair hearing (see Matter of Solovay v. Solovay, 94 A.D.3d 898, 900, 941 N.Y.S.2d 712 [2d Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 808, 2012 WL 2429241 [2012] ).