Matter of Gort v Kull
2012 NY Slip Op 04747 [96 AD3d 842]
June 13, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2012


In the Matter of Enid Gort, Respondent,
v
Donna Kull,Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[*1]Courten & Villar, PLLC, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Dorothy A. Courten and Karyn A. Villar ofcounsel), for appellant.

Clifford J. Petroske, P.C., Bohemia, N.Y., for petitioner-respondent.

Linda S. Morrison, Commack, N.Y., attorney for the child.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation, the motherappeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County(Genchi, J.) dated August 23, 2011, as, after a hearing, granted the petition to the extent ofallowing the grandmother to have any visitation that the father of the child chooses not to use.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

When a grandparent seeks visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72 (1), thecourt must make a two-part inquiry. First, it must find standing, based on the death of a parent orequitable circumstances which permit the court to entertain the petition. If it concludes that thegrandparent has established the right to be heard, then it must determine if visitation is in the bestinterests of the child (see Matter of E.S.v P.D., 8 NY3d 150, 157 [2007]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375,380 [2004]; Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 181 [1991]).

Here, contrary to the mother's contention, given the nature and extent of the relationshipbetween the petitioner, who is the paternal grandmother of the subject child, and the child, andthe grandmother's efforts to maintain that relationship, the Family Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in concluding that the grandmother had standing to seek visitation pursuant to theequitable circumstances clause of Domestic Relations Law § 72 (1) (see Matter of Waverly v Gibson, 79AD3d 897, 899 [2010]; Matter of Agusta v Carousso, 208 AD2d 620, 621-622[1994]).

The Family Court also providently exercised its discretion in determining that it was in thebest interests of the child to grant the grandmother's petition for visitation to the extent ofallowing her to have any visitation that the father of the child chooses not to use. The recordshows that the grandmother and child had a meaningful, loving relationship, and the animositybetween the grandmother and the mother is not a proper basis for denial of visitation to thegrandmother (see Matter of Steinhauserv Haas, 40 AD3d 863, 865 [2007]; Matter of Weis v Rivera, 29 AD3d 812, 813 [2006]). Rivera, J.P.,Hall, Lott and Cohen, 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.