IN RE: Partha CHAKRAVERTY (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the maternal grandfather appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Laura Norton Lerner, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 27, 2025.  The order, without a hearing, denied the maternal grandfather's petition pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72 for visitation with the subject children and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant to the respondents.

In April 2024, the maternal grandfather (hereinafter the grandfather) filed a petition pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72 for visitation with the subject children.  In an order dated January 27, 2025, the Family Court, without a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.  The grandfather appeals.

“When a grandparent seeks visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), the court must make a two-part inquiry” (Matter of Sands v. Sands, 174 A.D.3d 628, 629, 101 N.Y.S.3d 877 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of E.S. v. P.D., 8 N.Y.3d 150, 157, 831 N.Y.S.2d 96, 863 N.E.2d 100).  “First, it must find that the grandparent has standing, based on, inter alia, equitable considerations” (Matter of Sands v. Sands, 174 A.D.3d at 629, 101 N.Y.S.3d 877 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of E.S. v. P.D., 8 N.Y.3d at 157, 831 N.Y.S.2d 96, 863 N.E.2d 100).  “ ‘If it concludes that the grandparent has established standing to petition for visitation, then the court must determine if visitation is in the best interests of the child’ ” (Matter of Sands v. Sands, 174 A.D.3d at 629, 101 N.Y.S.3d 877, quoting Matter of Gray v. Varone, 101 A.D.3d 1122, 1123, 956 N.Y.S.2d 573;  see Matter of Kushner v. Askinazi, 209 A.D.3d 735, 736, 175 N.Y.S.3d 567).

“Standing [based on equitable circumstances] should be conferred by the court, in its discretion, only after it has examined all the relevant facts” (Matter of Kelly v. Cairo, 198 A.D.3d 964, 964, 157 N.Y.S.3d 39 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Emanuel S. v. Joseph E., 78 N.Y.2d 178, 182, 573 N.Y.S.2d 36, 577 N.E.2d 27).  “[A]n essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship” (Matter of Rodriguez v. ACS–Kings, 169 A.D.3d 693, 694, 91 N.Y.S.3d 706 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Emanuel S. v. Joseph E., 78 N.Y.2d at 182, 573 N.Y.S.2d 36, 577 N.E.2d 27).  “In cases where the relationship between the grandparent and grandchild has been frustrated by a parent, the grandparent must show, inter alia, that a sufficient effort was made to establish a relationship with the child, and the sufficiency of the grandparent's efforts is measured against what they could have reasonably done under the circumstances” (Matter of Gagliardi v. Ciccone, 188 A.D.3d 1203, 1204, 132 N.Y.S.3d 846;  see Matter of Emanuel S. v. Joseph E., 78 N.Y.2d at 182, 573 N.Y.S.2d 36, 577 N.E.2d 27;  Matter of Lipton v. Lipton, 98 A.D.3d 621, 622, 949 N.Y.S.2d 501).  “ ‘A hearing to determine the issue of standing is not necessary where there are no triable issues of fact raised in the submitted papers’ ” (Matter of Sands v. Sands, 174 A.D.3d at 630, 101 N.Y.S.3d 877, quoting Matter of Broomfield v. Evans, 140 A.D.3d 748, 749, 30 N.Y.S.3d 915;  see Matter of Rodriguez v. ACS–Kings, 169 A.D.3d at 694, 91 N.Y.S.3d 706).

Here, under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly determined that equitable considerations did not warrant judicial intervention to confer standing upon the grandfather (see Domestic Relations Law § 72;  Matter of Poznik v. Salkin, 214 A.D.3d 663, 664, 182 N.Y.S.3d 923).  The petition failed to allege facts that would show the existence of ongoing relationships with the children sufficient to establish standing (see Matter of Kelly v. Cairo, 198 A.D.3d at 964, 157 N.Y.S.3d 39;  Matter of Rodriguez v. ACS–Kings, 169 A.D.3d at 694, 91 N.Y.S.3d 706;  cf.  Matter of Gagliardi v. Ciccone, 188 A.D.3d at 1204, 132 N.Y.S.3d 846).

Since the grandfather failed to allege facts sufficient to establish standing to petition for visitation, the issue of the best interests of the children need not be reached (see Matter of Rodriguez v. ACS–Kings, 169 A.D.3d at 694, 91 N.Y.S.3d 706;  Matter of Broomfield v. Evans, 140 A.D.3d at 749, 30 N.Y.S.3d 915).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, without a hearing.

GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and VENTURA, JJ., concur.