Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Carol H., Petitioner–Appellant, v. Shewanna H., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings on Hudson, for Shewanna H., respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), attorney for the children.
_
Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan M. Doherty, Referee), entered on or about May 27, 2014, which dismissed the petition by the subject children's maternal grandmother for custody of the children, and denied petitioner's motion for leave to amend the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner, who has no relationship with the children and has not seen them for more than four years, failed to meet her heavy burden of establishing “extraordinary circumstances” in support of her custody application (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 544 [1976]; Matter of Jumper v. Hemphill, 75 AD3d 507 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 712 [2010] ). The petition fails to allege facts sufficient to make out extraordinary circumstances; thus, Family Court was not required to hold a hearing on the issue (Matter of Stephon M. [William W.], 84 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011] ).
The proposed amended petition does not cure the defects of the petition. Although it alleges that petitioner witnessed evidence of the unfitness of the children's mother “years ago,” it does not allege that she took steps to gain custody at that time or even that she tried to see the children on a regular basis.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1509 3
Decided: May 14, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)