You are here: / / THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF THE CHILD DIED BEFORE SHE AND PETITIONER WERE...
,

THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OF THE CHILD DIED BEFORE SHE AND PETITIONER WERE TO BE MARRIED; THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER ARGUED PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY AND FAMILY COURT AGREED; HOWEVER STANDING CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY EXTRAORDINAY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY BE PRESENT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined standing in a custody matter can be proven by extraordinary circumstances and sent the matter back for a ruling. The child’s mother died unexpectedly before she and petitioner were to be married. The petition was denied for lack of standing. However, standing can be proven by extraordinary circumstance which may be demonstrated here:

As a prerequisite to seeking custody or visitation with a child, a party must establish standing. The party may establish standing (1) as a parent pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70; (2) as a sibling for visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 71; (3) as a grandparent for visitation or custody pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72; or (4) by showing extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys (40 NY2d 543 [1976]) … . * * *

Family Court erred in dismissing petitioner’s custody and visitation petitions without permitting petitioner the opportunity to present evidence supporting her argument that she had standing based on extraordinary circumstances. Indeed, the Referee stated on the record during the hearing that she agreed with the biological father’s position that petitioner could only present extraordinary circumstances evidence after she established that she had standing. This is an error of law, as extraordinary circumstances is one of several bases for standing to seek custody and visitation.

Extraordinary circumstances may be found where there has been “a judicial finding of surrender, abandonment, unfitness, persistent neglect, unfortunate or involuntary extended disruption of custody, or other equivalent but rare extraordinary circumstance which would drastically affect the welfare of the child” … . Matter of Lashawn K. v Administration for Children’s Servs., 2023 NY Slip Op 05662, First Dept 11-9-23

Practice Point: Standing to bring a custody petition may be demonstrated by extraordinary circumstances. Here the biological mother died unexpectedly before she and petitioner were to be married. The biological father successfully argued petitioner did not have standing. The matter was sent back for Family Court for a ruling on whether petitioner demonstrated standing based upon extraordinary circumstances.

 

You might also like
STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF PROPERLY REDACTED FROM HOSPITAL RECORDS; EXPERT TESTIMONY DISCLOSED DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PROPERLY PRECLUDED.
Doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk Applies to Informal Game of Catch on a Paved Handball Court
PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASE ALLEGING AN ANTI-GAY HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOARDS OR MASONITE WERE SCATTERED DEBRIS OR DELIBERATELY PLACED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RENOVATION WORK; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR 241(6) CAUSE OF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PARTIES HAD ALREADY STIPULATED TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CONFERENCES OR OUTLINE REMAINING DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
NYC LOCAL LAW REQUIRING DISCLOSURE ABOUT THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW AND IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
POLICIES DID NOT REQUIRE THE INSURER TO DEFEND THE INSURED, BUT DID REQUIRE THE INSURER TO PAY THE INSURED’S DEFENSE COSTS (FIRST DEPT).

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

THE “CONSENT TO SEARCH” PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY... PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN AN “ALTERING” ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR...