Opinion
01-10-2017
In re SHERRENE R., Petitioner–Respondent, v. SHEENA R., Respondent–Appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Law Offices of Randall Carmel, Syosset (Randall Carmel of counsel), for respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Law Offices of Randall Carmel, Syosset (Randall Carmel of counsel), for respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Shirim Nothenberg of counsel), attorney for the child.
TOM, J.P., RICHTER, SAXE, GISCHE, GESMER, JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Gail A. Adams, Referee), entered on or about December 14, 2015, which, upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances following a hearing, determined that it would be in the best interests of the subject child to award sole physical and legal custody to petitioner grandmother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent mother concedes, and the record shows, that the requisite extraordinary circumstances exist for the grandmother to seek custody of the child (see Matter of Suarez v. Williams, 26 N.Y.3d 440, 448, 23 N.Y.S.3d 617, 44 N.E.3d 915 [2015] ; Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 [1976] ; Domestic Relations Law § 72[2][a] ). In the presence of such extraordinary circumstances, the court also correctly found that it is in the child's best interests to remain in the grandmother's custody, as all of the relevant factors to be considered support such a determination (see e.g. Melissa C.D. v. Rene I.D., 117 A.D.3d 407, 407–408, 985 N.Y.S.2d 28 [1st Dept.2014] ). The child has been residing with the grandmother for several years and wishes to remain with her, and the grandmother is providing for all of the child's needs (see Roberta P. v. Vanessa J.P., 140 A.D.3d 457, 31 N.Y.S.3d 507 [1st Dept.2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 904, 2016 WL 6113618 [2016] ). The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the mother's request for another adjournment, particularly because the need for the postponement was attributable to the mother's own conduct (see Matter of Jaynices D. [Yesenia Del V.], 67 A.D.3d 518, 889 N.Y.S.2d 144 [1st Dept.2009] ).
We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.