Opinion
10-20-2016
In re SHARON B., Petitioner–Respondent, v. TIFFANY P., Respondent–Appellant, Morris T., Respondent.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant. Bruce A. Young, New York, for respondent. Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), attorney for the child.
Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant.
Bruce A. Young, New York, for respondent.
Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), attorney for the child.
SWEENY, J.P., RENWICK, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa–Lintner, J.), entered on or about March 20, 2015, which, after a hearing, awarded sole physical and legal custody of the subject child to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner, the child's grandmother, demonstrated the requisite extraordinary circumstances to establish her standing to seek custody of the child (see Matter of Suarez v. Williams, 26 N.Y.3d 440, 23 N.Y.S.3d 617, 44 N.E.3d 915 [2015] ; Domestic Relations Law [DRL] § 72[2][a] ). Contrary to respondent mother's argument, substantial evidence supports the court's determination that petitioner, not respondent, cared for the child on a daily basis beginning in his infancy and that the child resided in her home for more than 10 years, nearly his entire life. Respondent's 28–month incarceration for selling drugs—during which time the child resided in petitioner's home—is alone enough to constitute extraordinary circumstances under DRL § 72(2) (see Suarez, 26 N.Y.3d at 451, 23 N.Y.S.3d 617, 44 N.E.3d 915 ).
The record also supports the court's determination that it is in the child's best interests to be in petitioner's custody (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 [1976] ). Petitioner has supported the child and provided a stable and loving home where he is thriving, while respondent is at this point unable to do so (see Matter of Ruth L. v. Clemese Theresa J., 104 A.D.3d 554, 961 N.Y.S.2d 413 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 860, 2013 WL 3198149 [2013] ). The child is fully bonded with petitioner, and, by all accounts, she has provided him with excellent care. The court gave the appropriate weight to the testimony of petitioner and the child's social worker, the reports of the forensic evaluator, and the child's own wishes in coming to its determination.
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.