You are here: / / Nonparent Must Show Extraordinary Circumstances in Face of Custody Petition...

Nonparent Must Show Extraordinary Circumstances in Face of Custody Petition Even If Nonparent Has Custody Pursuant to Prior Consent Order

In upholding Family Court’s denial of mother’s petition for sole custody, the Second Department determined the paternal grandparents, who were sharing custody under a consent order, met their “extraordinary circumstances” burden.  The Second Department noted that even where there is a prior order granting custody to a nonparent, the nonparent still has the burden of demonstrating “extraordinary circumstances” to continue the arrangement in the face of a petition for custody:

In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, ” the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances'”…. The nonparent has the burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances even where, as here, there is a prior order awarding physical custody of a child to the nonparent that had been issued on the consent of the parties…. Where extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must then consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody….   Matter of DiBenedetto v DiBenedetto, 2013 NY Slip Op 05064, 2nd Dept 7-3-12

 

You might also like
Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–Activity (Routine Cleaning) Not Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Re: Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence: Equipment Provided by Defendant Not Defective; Defendant Did Not Have Authority to Control Plaintiff’s Work
ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COUNSEL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEEK LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION FOR FIVE YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1021 (SECOND DEPT). ​
CHILD BURNED BY HOT EMBERS IN A CAMPSITE, NEITHER THE LAST OCCUPANT OF THE CAMPSITE NOR THE LANDOWNER (THE COUNTY) WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED.
ABSENCE OF SAFETY RAIL ON SCAFFOLDING ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
60-Day Rule Did Not Apply—Failure to Submit Proposed Order Within 60 Days Did Not Constitute Abandonment of the Claim

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

Father Estopped from Denying Paternity—Best Interests of Child Prevai... Criteria for Permanent Neglect Explained