Opinion
2018–03230 (Docket No. V–1286–17)
05-08-2019
In the Matter of Williemae FRYE, Appellant, v. Ryan LOWERY, Respondent-Respondent, et al., Respondent.
Kelley M. Enderley, Poughkeepsie, NY, for appellant. Sara Jane Carr, Poughquag, NY, attorney for the child.
Kelley M. Enderley, Poughkeepsie, NY, for appellant.
Sara Jane Carr, Poughquag, NY, attorney for the child.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Denise M. Watson, J.), dated March 12, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, granted the grandmother's visitation petition only to the extent of awarding her visitation with the subject child two times per year.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The death of the subject child's mother provided the grandmother with standing to seek visitation with the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 72[1] ; Matter of E.S. v. P.D., 8 N.Y.3d 150, 157, 831 N.Y.S.2d 96, 863 N.E.2d 100 ; Matter of B.S. v. B.T., 148 A.D.3d 1029, 1031, 49 N.Y.S.3d 732 ; Matter of Pinsky v. Botnick, 105 A.D.3d 852, 962 N.Y.S.2d 668 ), but did not guarantee any such award (see Matter of Wilson v. McGlinchey, 2 N.Y.3d 375, 380, 779 N.Y.S.2d 159, 811 N.E.2d 526 ; Matter of Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 137 A.D.3d 784, 786, 26 N.Y.S.3d 360 ; Matter of Gavrusinas v. Melnichenko, 305 A.D.2d 679, 760 N.Y.S.2d 518 ; Matter of Apker v. Malchak, 112 A.D.2d 518, 519, 490 N.Y.S.2d 923 ). The question of visitation, which involves a determination of what is in the child's best interests, is left to the discretion of the court (see Matter of E.S. v. P.D., 8 N.Y.3d at 157, 831 N.Y.S.2d 96, 863 N.E.2d 100 ; Lo Presti v. Lo Presti, 40 N.Y.2d 522, 527, 387 N.Y.S.2d 412, 355 N.E.2d 372 ; Matter of Pinsky v. Botnick, 105 A.D.3d at 855, 962 N.Y.S.2d 668 ; Matter of Principato v. Lombardi, 19 A.D.3d 602, 602–603, 798 N.Y.S.2d 71 ). Contrary to the grandmother's contention, the Family Court's determination to award her limited visitation with the child two times per year is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Gangi v. Sanfratello, 157 A.D.3d 677, 678, 66 N.Y.S.3d 622 ; Matter of Hargrove v. Langenau, 138 A.D.3d 846, 847, 30 N.Y.S.3d 166 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., LASALLE, IANNACCI and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.