| Matter of Helen G. (James K.T.—Laverne W.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05117 [96 AD3d 666] |
| June 26, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Helen G., Appellant, v James K.T.,Respondent, and Laverne W., Respondent. |
—[*1] Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, New York (Doneth Gayle of counsel), attorney forthe child.
Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.H.O.), entered on or aboutOctober 13, 2010, which, after a hearing, denied the petition for grandparent visitation,unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for adetermination of whether it is in the subject child's best interest to recommence visitation andcontact with petitioner.
The Family Court erred in finding that petitioner, the child's paternal grandmother, who livesin the State of Georgia, does not have standing based on equitable circumstances to seekvisitation (see Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]; Matter of Emanuel S. vJoseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 180 [1991]). The record establishes that although petitioner'srelationship with the subject child became sporadic after he turned two years old, when therelationship between the child's parents deteriorated, petitioner traveled to New York on severaloccasions over the course of the following seven years and attempted to see the child, but wasusually prevented from doing so by respondent mother.
Petitioner eventually filed the instant petition and the parties agreed in court in March 2010to allow telephone calls and visits in New York. Some telephone contact ensued but whenpetitioner arrived in New York for a prearranged visit in July, respondent mother refused to allowthe visit and cut off communication, alleging that petitioner was consorting with her son, thechild's father, who is also a named respondent, but who does not oppose the instant petition.
The acrimonious nature of the relationship between petitioner and respondent is aninsufficient basis upon which to determine that visitation is not in the child's best interest (see e.g. Matter of E.S. v P.D., 8NY3d 150, 157 [2007]; Matter ofWeis v Rivera, 29 AD3d 812, 813[*2][2006]). Sincemore than a year has passed since contact was cut off by respondent, a new hearing must be heldto determine whether it is in the child's best interest to recommence visitation and/or contact withpetitioner. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.