IN RE: TERESA J. (2008)

 Respondent mother appeals from an order denying her petition seeking to revoke her consent to letters of guardianship appointing petitioner nonparent as the guardian of her child.   We agree with the mother that Family Court erred in determining that the nonparent was not required to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances in order to retain custody of the child even where, as here, a prior order granting custody of the child to a nonparent was made upon consent of the parties (see Matter of Katherine D. v. Lawrence D., 32 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 822 N.Y.S.2d 349, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 717, 827 N.Y.S.2d 688, 860 N.E.2d 990;  Matter of Vincent A.B. v. Karen T., 30 A.D.3d 1100, 1101, 816 N.Y.S.2d 637, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 711, 823 N.Y.S.2d 770, 857 N.E.2d 65;  Matter of Guinta v. Doxtator, 20 A.D.3d 47, 53-55, 794 N.Y.S.2d 516).   Rather, the court should have determined whether there were extraordinary circumstances and, if so, what custody disposition was in the best interests of the child.   It is well settled that “[t]he State may not deprive a parent of the custody of a child absent surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances.   If any of such extraordinary circumstances are present, the disposition of custody is influenced or controlled by what is in the best interest[s] of the child” (Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 544, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277).   Nevertheless, we need not remit the matter for a new hearing because the record is adequate to enable us to determine that there are extraordinary circumstances herein (see Katherine D., 32 A.D.3d at 1351, 822 N.Y.S.2d 349;  Vincent A.B., 30 A.D.3d at 1101, 816 N.Y.S.2d 637).   Indeed, the record establishes that the mother is unfit to care for her child, who was born in March 2005 and has been in the custody of the nonparent since she was approximately eight months old (see generally Bennett, 40 N.Y.2d at 544, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: