You are here: / / Grant of Visitation to Mother of Deceased Father (Grandmother) Reverse...

Grant of Visitation to Mother of Deceased Father (Grandmother) Reversed​

In reversing Family Court’s grant of visitation to the children’s grandmother, the Second Department wrote:

A court determining a petition for grandparent visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), must undertake a two-part inquiry. First, it must determine whether the grandparent has standing to petition for visitation rights based on the death of a parent or equitable circumstances …. If the court concludes that the grandparent has established the right to be heard, then it must determine if visitation is in the best interests of the child … . “[T]he courts should not lightly intrude on the family relationship against a fit parent’s wishes” … . “Indeed, it is strongly presumed that a fit parent’s decisions are in the child’s best interests” … .

In this case, the Family Court should have denied the grandmother’s petition for visitation. The death of the children’s father provided the grandmother with automatic standing to seek visitation (see Domestic Relations Law § 72[1]…). Nevertheless, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition. The evidence in the record … established that visitation was not in the best interests of the children at the time the Family Court granted the petition … . Moreover, we note that on this appeal, the attorney for the children supports the denial of visitation. Matter of Pinsky v Botnick, 2012 NY Slip Op 02402, 2012-03338 2012-07576, 2nd Dept, 4-10-13​

 

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN WHY AN AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE INITIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRECLUDED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).
​THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) RELIED SOLELY ON PRIOR NEGLECT FINDINGS FROM 2007 AND 2009 TO PROVE DERIVATIVE NEGLECT; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH FATHER PAID WHAT HE OWED WHEN MOTHER FILED A PETITION FOR UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT, MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE GAVE THE WRONG JURY INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR DAMAGE WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE COULD EITHER BE A CAUSE COVERED BY THE POLICY OR A CAUSE NOT COVERED BY THE POLICY, THE OVER $1.8 MILLION VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Determining Motions to Dismiss Affirmative Defenses Explained
ALTHOUGH A FORECLOSURE ACTION USUALLY ACCELERATES THE DEBT AND STARTS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CLOCK, HERE THE DEFENDANTS-BORROWERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DUE (THE 2009 COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUBMITTED); THEREFORE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTANT ACTION IS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
THE MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION THAT THERE WAS NO SWIMMING POOL ON THE PROPERTY JUSTIFIED THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE FOR FIRE DAMAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Denied Constitutional Right to Present a Defense—Evidence Victim Identified Another as the Perpetrator Wrongly Excluded

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Out-of-Pocket Expenses Must Be Alleged in Claim Based on Alleged Failure to... Award of Sole Custody to Mother Without a Hearing Reversed—Reliance on...