| Matter of Krieger v Krieger |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06848 [65 AD3d 1352] |
| September 29, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Sandra Krieger et al., Appellants, v BrianKrieger et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Donna M. McCabe, East Atlantic Beach, N.Y., for respondent Brian Krieger. Roberta Nancy Kaufman, Hicksville, N.Y., for respondent Traci Krieger. Janis A. Parazzelli, Floral Park, N.Y., attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioners, thepaternal grandparents of the subject child, appeal from an order of the Family Court, NassauCounty (Phillips, Ct Atty Referee), dated April 4, 2008, which dismissed so much of theirpetition as sought custody of the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
As between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has the superior right to custody that cannotbe denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent relinquished that right due to theexistence of extraordinary circumstances, such as surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, orunfitness (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 549-550 [1976]; Matter ofJiminez v Jiminez, 57 AD3d 781 [2008]; Matter of K.F.T. v D.P.G., 54 AD3d 1044[2008]; Matter of Dungee v Simmons, 307 AD2d 312, 312-313 [2003]; see alsoMatter of Courtney B., 47 AD3d 808 [2008]). The burden is on the nonparent to prove theexistence of extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of K.F.T. v D.P.G., 54 AD3d 1044[2008]), and "[a]bsent proof of such extraordinary circumstances, an inquiry into the bestinterests of the child is not triggered" (Matter of Jiminez v Jiminez, 57 AD3d 781[2008]). The Family Court properly determined that the petitioners failed to meet their burden ofdemonstrating the existence of extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of Jiminez vJiminez, 57 AD3d 781 [2008]; Matter of Tolbert v Scott, 42 AD3d 548 [2007];Matter of Cambridge v Cambridge, 13 AD3d 443 [2004]).
The petitioners' remaining contention is not properly before this Court (see Katz vKatz, 68 AD2d 536, 543 [1979]). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.