Matter of Jiminez v Jiminez
2008 NY Slip Op 09999 [57 AD3d 781]
December 16, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009


In the Matter of Christine Jiminez, Appellant,
v
Maureen Jiminez,Respondent.

[*1]Helene Migdon Greenberg, Elmsford, N.Y., for appellant.

Susan Argento Ferlauto, Thornwood, N.Y. (Neal D. Futerfas of counsel), for respondent.

Deborah D. Clegg, New Rochelle, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the stepmother appeals, as limitedby her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Duffy, J.), enteredNovember 15, 2007, as denied her petition for custody and awarded sole custody of the child to themother.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent " 'the parent has a superior right tocustody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent had relinquished that rightdue to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances'" (Matter of K.F.T. v D.P.G., 54 AD3d1044, 1044-1045 [2008], quoting Matter of Wilson v Smith, 24 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]; see Matter ofBennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 549-550 [1976]). Absent proof of such extraordinarycircumstances, an inquiry into the best interests of the child is not triggered (see Matter of K.F.T. v D.P.G., 54 AD3d1044 [2008]).

Here, the Family Court's determination that the stepmother failed to establish extraordinarycircumstances has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Tolbert v Scott, 42 AD3d548, 549 [2007]; Matter of Cambridgev Cambridge, 13 AD3d 443, 444 [2004]; compare Matter of Gilchrest v Patterson, 55 AD3d 833 [2008]; Matter of Cockrell v Burke, 50 AD3d895 [2008]; [*2]Matter of West v Turner, 38 AD3d 673, 674 [2007]; Matter of Dellolio v Tracy, 35 AD3d737 [2006]; Matter of Wilson vSmith, 24 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]; Matter of Campo v Chapman, 24 AD3d 439 [2005]). Skelos, J.P.,Santucci, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.