Opinion
2016–02560 Docket Nos. V–10289–12 V–10290–12 V–10291–12
03-21-2018
In the Matter of Steven MASTRONARDI, et al., petitioners-respondents, v. Debra MILANO–GRANITO, respondent-appellant; Tyler M. (Anonymous), et al., nonparty-appellants.
Eric J. Herrmann, New York, NY, for respondent-appellant. Elaine Miller, Great Neck, NY, for nonparty-appellants. Polin, Prisco & Villafane, Westbury, N.Y. (Armand J. Prisco of counsel), for petitioners-respondents.
Eric J. Herrmann, New York, NY, for respondent-appellant.
Elaine Miller, Great Neck, NY, for nonparty-appellants.
Polin, Prisco & Villafane, Westbury, N.Y. (Armand J. Prisco of counsel), for petitioners-respondents.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Separate appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Robert Lopresti, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated January 25, 2016. The order, after a hearing, granted the petition of the paternal grandparents pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) for visitation with the subject children.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The paternal grandparents of the subject children commenced this proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) for visitation with the children. After a hearing, the Family Court granted the petition and set forth a visitation schedule. The mother appeals, and the children separately appeal.
When a grandparent seeks visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), the court must make a two-part inquiry (see Matter of Winn v. Diaz , 156 A.D.3d 645, 646, 64 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; Matter of B.S. v. B.T., 148 A.D.3d 1029, 1030, 49 N.Y.S.3d 732 ; Matter of Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick , 137 A.D.3d 784, 784–785, 26 N.Y.S.3d 360 ). First, it must find that the grandparent has standing, based on the death of a parent or equitable circumstances (see 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 Pinsky v. Botnick , 105 A.D.3d 852, 854, 962 N.Y.S.2d 668 ; Matter of Steinhauser v. Haas , 40 A.D.3d 863, 864, 837 N.Y.S.2d 660 ). "Where either parent of the grandchild has died, the grandparents have an absolute right to standing" ( Matter of Emanuel S. v. Joseph E. , 78 N.Y.2d 178, 181, 573 N.Y.S.2d 36, 577 N.E.2d 27 ). Once the court concludes that the grandparent has established standing to petition for visitation, the court must then determine if visitation is in the best interests of the child (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 ; Matter of Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick , 137 A.D.3d at 785, 26 N.Y.S.3d 360; Matter of Pinsky v. Botnick , 105 A.D.3d at 854, 962 N.Y.S.2d 668 ). "[T]he court's determination concerning whether to award visitation ‘depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the assessments of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents' and grandparents" ( Matter of Hilgenberg v. Hertel , 100 A.D.3d 1432, 1434, 954 N.Y.S.2d 793, quoting Matter of Thomas v. Thomas , 35 A.D.3d 868, 869, 826 N.Y.S.2d 438 ; see Matter of Steinhauser v. Haas , 40 A.D.3d at 864, 837 N.Y.S.2d 660 ). This "determination concerning visitation will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Matter of Hilgenberg v. Hertel , 100 A.D.3d at 1434, 954 N.Y.S.2d 793 ; see Matter of Troiano v. Marotta , 127 A.D.3d 877, 879, 6 N.Y.S.3d 610 ; Matter of Gonzalez v. Borbon , 121 A.D.3d 895, 896, 994 N.Y.S.2d 188 ).
Here, the death of the children's father provided the paternal grandparents with automatic standing to seek visitation (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 ; Matter of B.S. v. B.T., 148 A.D.3d at 1031, 49 N.Y.S.3d 732 ; Matter of Pinsky v. Botnick , 105 A.D.3d at 855, 962 N.Y.S.2d 668 ).
Turning to the second part of the inquiry, the Family Court properly determined that visitation between the paternal grandparents and the children was in the children's best interests. Animosity alone is insufficient to deny visitation (see Matter of Winn v. Diaz , 156 A.D.3d 645, 64 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; Matter of Seddio v. Artura , 139 A.D.3d 1075, 1077, 32 N.Y.S.3d 299 ). Here, the estrangement between the paternal grandparents and the children resulted from the animosity between the mother and the paternal grandparents, and the record supported the forensic evaluator's determination that the paternal grandparents' conduct was not the cause of the animosity (see Matter of Winn v. Diaz , 156 A.D.3d 645, 64 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; Matter of Seddio v. Artura , 139 A.D.3d at 1077, 32 N.Y.S.3d 299 ).
Moreover, contrary to the appellants' contention, the Family Court did not, in the order appealed from, improperly delegate its authority to determine visitation issues to the supervisor of the therapeutic visits (see Matter of Dylan Mc. [Michelle M. Mc.], 105 A.D.3d 1049, 1049, 964 N.Y.S.2d 209 ; cf. Matter of Rogan v. Guida , 143 A.D.3d 830, 831, 39 N.Y.S.3d 55 ; Matter of Balgley v. Cohen , 73 A.D.3d 1038, 1038, 900 N.Y.S.2d 659 ).
The appellants' contentions related to the Family Court's subsequent order dated March 9, 2016, are not properly before this Court.
The grandparents' remaining contention is without merit.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.