| Matter of Decoursy v Poplawski |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03517 [61 AD3d 974] |
| April 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Joan Decoursy, Appellant, v DianePoplawski et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Ansanelli, Kugler & Svendsen, LLP, Amityville, N.Y. (Karen S. Svendsen of counsel), forrespondents. Robert G. Venturo, Islandia, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation, thepetitioner maternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County(Boggio, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 7, 2008, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although grandparents have no absolute or automatic right to visitation in New York State,Domestic Relations Law § 72 (1) allows them to apply for visitation rights if thecircumstances are such that "equity would see fit to intervene." Whether such visitation shouldbe granted lies within the discretion of the Family Court (see Lo Presti v Lo Presti, 40NY2d 522, 527 [1976]), and must be determined in light of the grandchildren's best interests (see Matter of E.S. v P.D., 8 NY3d150, 157 [2007]; Lo Presti v Lo Presti, 40 NY2d at 527).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretionin dismissing her petition. There is ample evidence in the record, including the granddaughter'swell-documented apprehension regarding visitation with the petitioner, to support thedetermination that [*2]grandparent visitation would not be in thegrandchildren's best interests (see Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 382[2004]; Matter of Doolittle v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 304 AD2d 828[2003]; Matter of D'Alessandro v D'Alessandro, 283 AD2d 429 [2001]).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Santucci andHall, JJ., concur.