PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.MEMORANDUM:Respondent father appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted custody of respondents' eldest minor daughter to petitioner Sarah Roseman in proceeding No. 1 and custody of respondents' other two minor daughters to petitioner Cynthia Carroll in proceeding No. 2. Where, as here, there are “child custody dispute[s] between a parent and [two] nonparents, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent[s] establish[ ] that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other extraordinary circumstances” (Matter of Herrera v. Vallejo, 107 A.D.3d 714, 714, 966 N.Y.S.2d 206 ; see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 548, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 ; Matter of Komenda v. Dininny, 115 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 983 N.Y.S.2d 188 ). Contrary to the father's contention, the record supports Family Court's determination that petitioners met their burden of establishing such extraordinary circumstances. They presented evidence of the father's long and serious history of alcohol abuse and the “highly unstable and unsafe living situation” such abuse created for the children (Herrera, 107 A.D.3d at 715, 966 N.Y.S.2d 206 ; see Komenda, 115 A.D.3d at 1350, 983 N.Y.S.2d 188 ).

The mother refuses to admit that she is a victim of domestic violence, and called the child a liar when the child disclosed the domestic violence to the grandmother. The court's determination that it is in the child's best interests to grant the grandmother sole custody is supported by a sound and substantial basis (see Johnson, 185 A.D.3d at 1550; Matter of Komenda v Dininny, 115 A.D.3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2014]).

Indeed, the evidence showed that the mother does not have adequate supplies for the child and does not know the child's clothing size (see Matter of Debra SS. v. Brian TT. , 163 A.D.3d 1199, 1200-1202, 81 N.Y.S.3d 621 [3d Dept. 2018] ; Matter of DellaPiana v. DellaPiana , 161 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 75 N.Y.S.3d 381 [3d Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Diane FF. v. Faith GG. , 291 A.D.2d 671, 672, 737 N.Y.S.2d 437 [3d Dept. 2002] ). Thus, the court properly determined that the grandmother met her burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances existed (see Matter of Komenda v. Dininny , 115 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 983 N.Y.S.2d 188 [4th Dept. 2014] ). The mother does not challenge the merits of the court's determination that the child's best interests are served by awarding sole custody to the grandmother.

Indeed, the evidence showed that the mother does not have adequate supplies for the child and does not know the child's clothing size (see Matter of Debra SS. v Brian TT., 163 AD3d 1199, 1200-1202 [3d Dept 2018]; Matter of DellaPiana v DellaPiana, 161 AD3d 1228, 1229 [3d Dept 2018]; Matter of Diane FF. v FaithGG., 291 AD2d 671, 672 [3d Dept 2002]). Thus, the court properly determined that the grandmother met her burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances existed (see Matter of Komenda v Dininny, 115 AD3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2014]). The mother does not challenge the merits of the court's determination that the child's best interests are served by awarding sole custody to the grandmother.

We affirm.Contrary to the mother's contention, petitioner established the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to warrant an inquiry into whether an award of custody to a nonparent was in the child's best interests ( Matter of Howard v. McLoughlin, 64 A.D.3d 1147, 1147, 881 N.Y.S.2d 766 [4th Dept. 2009] ; see also Matter of Debra SS. v. Brian TT., 163 A.D.3d 1199, 1200–1202, 81 N.Y.S.3d 621 [3d Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Komenda v. Dininny, 115 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 983 N.Y.S.2d 188 [4th Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Barnes v. Evans, 79 A.D.3d 1723, 1723–1724, 914 N.Y.S.2d 487 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 711, 2011 WL 1643301 [2011] ). Contrary to the mother's further contention, the court properly determined that the child's best interests were served by awarding petitioner custody (seeMatter of Evelyn EE. v. Ayesha FF., 143 A.D.3d 1120, 1128, 40 N.Y.S.3d 212 [3d Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 913, 2017 WL 524718 [2017] ; Matter of Wilson v. Hayward, 128 A.D.3d 1475, 1477, 8 N.Y.S.3d 803 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 909, 2015 WL 6143567 [2015] ; see also Matter of Tennant v. Philpot, 77 A.D.3d 1086, 1089, 909 N.Y.S.2d 225 [3d Dept. 2010] ).

We affirm. Contrary to the mother's contention, petitioner established the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to warrant an inquiry into whether an award of custody to a nonparent was in the child's best interests (Matter of Howard v McLoughlin, 64 AD3d 1147, 1147 [4th Dept 2009]; see also Matter of Debra SS. v Brian TT., 163 AD3d 1199, 1200-1202 [3d Dept 2018]; Matter of Komenda v Dininny, 115 AD3d 1349, 1350 [4th Dept 2014]; Matter of Barnes v Evans, 79 AD3d 1723, 1723-1724 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 711 [2011]). Contrary to the mother's further contention, the court properly determined that the child's best interests were served by awarding petitioner custody (see Matter of Evelyn EE. v Ayesha FF., 143 AD3d 1120, 1128 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 913 [2017]; Matter of Wilson v Hayward, 128 AD3d 1475, 1477 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 909 [2015]; see also Matter of Tennant v Philpot, 77 AD3d 1086, 1089 [3d Dept 2010]).

The record establishes that the mother suffers from ongoing and chronic mental health issues, “which she has failed to address adequately” (Matter of Johnson v. Streich–McConnell, 66 A.D.3d 1526, 1527, 886 N.Y.S.2d 539 ; see generally Matter of Beth M. v. Susan T., 81 A.D.3d 1396, 1397, 917 N.Y.S.2d 466 ; Matter of Brault v. Smugorzewski, 68 A.D.3d 1819, 1819, 890 N.Y.S.2d 866 ). The mother also has a history of alcohol abuse (see Matter of Komenda v. Dininny, 115 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 983 N.Y.S.2d 188 ; Beth M., 81 A.D.3d at 1397, 917 N.Y.S.2d 466 ), as well as a history of “ ‘persistent neglect of the child[ren]'s health and well-being’ ” (Matter of Barnes v. Evans, 79 A.D.3d 1723, 1723–1724, 914 N.Y.S.2d 487, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 711, 2011 WL 1643301 ). The evidence in the record establishes that the mother's issues resulted in an “ unfortunate [and] involuntary disruption of custody over an extended period of time” ( bennett, 40 n.y.2d at 546, 387 N.y.s.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 ).

The record establishes that the mother suffers from ongoing and chronic mental health issues, "which she has failed to address adequately" (Matter of Johnson v Streich-McConnell, 66 AD3d 1526, 1527; see generally Matter of Beth M. v Susan T., 81 AD3d 1396, 1397; Matter of Brault v Smugorzewski, 68 AD3d 1819, 1819). The mother also has a history of alcohol abuse (see Matter of Komenda v Dininny, 115 AD3d 1349, 1350; Beth M., 81 AD3d at 1397), as well as a history of " persistent neglect of the child[ren]'s health and well-being' " (Matter of Barnes v Evans, 79 AD3d 1723, 1723-1724, lv denied 16 NY3d 711). The evidence in the record establishes that the mother's issues resulted in an "unfortunate [and] involuntary disruption of custody over an extended period of time" (Bennett, 40 NY2d at 546). Entered: November 10, 2016

Further, the mother specifically acknowledged that she had relinquished the child's care to other persons during periods where she was using drugs because she was unable to provide the necessary care to the child. This evidence that the mother had not consistently maintained sobriety, that she was not maintaining complete sobriety at the time of the hearing and that her drug use had affected her ability to provide sufficient care for the child satisfied petitioners' burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances ( see Matter of Sweeney v. Sweeney, 127 A.D.3d at 1261, 6 N.Y.S.3d 721; Matter of Komenda v. Dininny, 115 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 983 N.Y.S.2d 188 [2014]; Matter of Diana B. v. Lorry B., 111 A.D.3d 927, 928, 976 N.Y.S.2d 115 [2013], lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 863, 984 N.Y.S.2d 294, 7 N.E.3d 508 [2014]; Matter of Ettari v. Peart, 110 A.D.3d 1256, 1257, 973 N.Y.S.2d 456 [2013] ). The custody of the mother's additional children is not at issue.

Moreover, during his testimony at a hearing on the petition and cross petition , the father admitted that he did not know the children's birth dates, ages, or grade levels at school. We therefore agree with the court that Hayward met her burden of proving that extraordinary circumstances were present here ( see Matter of Komenda v. Dininny, 115 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 983 N.Y.S.2d 188; Campbell, 114 A.D.3d at 1176–1177, 979 N.Y.S.2d 740; Ruggieri, 23 A.D.3d at 992, 803 N.Y.S.2d 839). We reject the father's related contention that he was not required to demonstrate a change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into the best interests of the children.