Opinion
CAF 18–01863 327
05-01-2020
In the MATTER OF Richard PANEBIANCO, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Taryn Panebianco, Respondent–Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DANIELLE K. BLACKABY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. ELIZABETH C. FRANI, SYRACUSE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (DANIELLE K. BLACKABY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.
ELIZABETH C. FRANI, SYRACUSE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner, the maternal grandfather of the subject child, commenced this proceeding seeking visitation with him, and respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted the petition and awarded the grandfather visitation with the child. The mother contends that Family Court erred in concluding that the grandfather had standing to seek visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1). We reject that contention inasmuch as the grandfather established that "conditions exist [in] which equity would see fit to intervene" (id.; see Matter of Richardson v Ludwig, 126 A.D.3d 1546, 1547, 4 N.Y.S.3d 570 [4th Dept. 2015] ; see generally Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 N.Y.2d 178, 182–183, 573 N.Y.S.2d 36, 577 N.E.2d 27 [1991] ). In particular, it is undisputed that the grandfather had a long-standing and loving relationship with the child (see Matter of Hilgenberg v. Hertel, 100 A.D.3d 1432, 1433, 954 N.Y.S.2d 793 [4th Dept. 2012] ; see generally Emanuel S., 78 N.Y.2d at 182, 573 N.Y.S.2d 36, 577 N.E.2d 27 ) and, contrary to the mother's contention, the record supports the court's determination that the mother's proffered objections to visitation lacked a sound basis and were primarily pretextual (see Matter of Kenyon v. Kenyon, 251 A.D.2d 763, 764, 674 N.Y.S.2d 455 [3d Dept. 1998] ). Finally, contrary to the mother's implicit contention, we conclude that the record supports the court's determination that visitation is in the best interests of the child (see Richardson, 126 A.D.3d at 1547, 4 N.Y.S.3d 570 ).