Opinion
2011-12-20
In re NATASHA LATOYA T–M., Petitioner–Appellant, v. MICHAEL DEVONNE M., Respondent,Administration for Children Services of the State of New York, Respondent–Respondent.
Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for ACS, respondent.
Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for ACS, respondent. Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Michael D. Scherz of counsel), attorney for the child.GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, SWEENY, ROMÁN JJ.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about May 21, 2009, which, inter alia, denied the petition for custody of the subject child and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
“It is well established that in reviewing ... custody issues, deference is to be accorded to the determination rendered by the factfinder, unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” ( Yolanda R. v. Eugene I.G., 38 A.D.3d 288, 289, 831 N.Y.S.2d 387 [2007] ). Here, in denying the petition, the court properly considered the child's best interests in finding that there existed sufficient evidence of extraordinary circumstances, including petitioner mother's minimal contact with the child over several years and her inability to provide and safeguard the child's mental and developmental needs ( see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 [1976] ). There exists no basis to disturb the court's determination that the child should remain with his paternal grandmother, who had provided him with a stable and nurturing home in the preceding years.
We have considered the mother's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.