| Matter of Flores v Flores |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00516 [91 AD3d 869] |
| Jnury 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Denia E. Flores, Respondent, v Karina E.Flores, Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Deana Balahtsis, New York, N.Y. (Meghan R. Buckwalter of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Sena Kim-Reuter and Janet Neustaetter of counsel),attorney for the child.
In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Krauss, J.), dated December 2, 2010, which,after a hearing, granted the maternal grandmother's petition for custody of the subject child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, "the parent has the superior rightto custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquishedthat right due to surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinarycircumstances" (Matter of Dungee v Simmons, 307 AD2d 312, 312-313 [2003]; see Matter of Ruiz v Travis, 84 AD3d1242 [2011]). The burden of establishing the existence of extraordinary circumstances is onthe party seeking to deprive the natural parent of custody (see Matter of Cambridge v Cambridge, 13 AD3d 443 [2004]).Where extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must then consider the best interests ofthe child in awarding custody (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 548[1976]; Matter of Wright v Wright,81 AD3d 740, 741 [2011]).
The Family Court properly determined that the maternal grandmother sustained her burden ofdemonstrating extraordinary circumstances in this case (see Matter of Brault v Smugorzewski, 68 AD3d 1819 [2009]; Matter of Donohue v Donohue, 44AD3d 1042, 1043 [2007]; Matter of Scala v Parker, 304 AD2d 858, 859 [2003]).Moreover, the Family Court's determination that an award of custody to the maternalgrandmother would be in the best interests of the subject child is supported by a sound andsubstantial basis in the record, and we discern no basis to disturb it (see Matter of Jumper v Hemphill, 75AD3d 507, 508 [2010]; Matter ofLaBorde v Pennington, 60 AD3d 950, 951-952 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Lott, Roman andCohen, JJ., concur.