| Matter of Kalkstein v Rist |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08576 [78 AD3d 947] |
| November 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Pamela Kalkstein, Appellant, v Joel Rist,Respondent. Theresa M. Daniele, Attorney for the Child, NonpartyRespondent. |
—[*1] J. Henry Neale, Jr., White Plains, N.Y., for respondent-respondent. Theresa M. Daniele, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child, nonparty respondent prose.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation, thegrandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), enteredFebruary 22, 2010, which, upon granting the motion of the attorney for the child, in effect, todismiss the proceeding, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
"To be afforded standing to seek grandparental visitation over the objection of a biologicalparent, the petitioning grandparent must establish an existing relationship with the grandchild, orsufficient efforts to establish one that have been unjustifiably frustrated by the parent. Only aftersuch a favorable showing of the equities has been made will the court, considering all relevantfacts and circumstances, determine whether the application deserves judicial intervention"(Matter of Canales v Aulet, 295 AD2d 507 [2002]; see Domestic Relations Law§ 72; Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 181 [1991]).
Here, the grandmother failed to show any basis for judicial intervention at this time. Rivera,J.P., Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.