Opinion
2022-04086 Docket Nos. V-17175-21 V-17176-21
03-01-2023
In the Matter of Judy Poznik, appellant, v. Tamara Salkin, et al., respondents.
Tabat, Cohen, Blum, Yovino & Diesa, P.C., Hauppauge, NY (Elizabeth Diesa and Angela A. Ruffini of counsel), for appellant. Winkler Kurtz, LLP, Port Jefferson Station, NY (Lindsey M. Albinski and Daniel E. Brickley of counsel), for respondents.
Tabat, Cohen, Blum, Yovino & Diesa, P.C., Hauppauge, NY (Elizabeth Diesa and Angela A. Ruffini of counsel), for appellant.
Winkler Kurtz, LLP, Port Jefferson Station, NY (Lindsey M. Albinski and Daniel E. Brickley of counsel), for respondents.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. ANGELA G. IANNACCI WILLIAM G. FORD HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the maternal grandmother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kerri N. Lechtrecker, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated April 27, 2022. The order granted, without a hearing, the parents' motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) for grandparent visitation with the subject children, and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Domestic Relations Law § 72 "does not create an absolute or automatic right of visitation. Instead, the statute provides a procedural mechanism for grandparents to acquire standing to seek visitation with a minor grandchild" (Matter of Marchant v Marchant, 185 A.D.3d 1035, 1035-1036 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of E.S. v P.D., 8 N.Y.3d 150, 157). Thus, "when grandparents seek visitation under section 72(1), the court must undertake a two-part inquiry. First, the court must find standing based on death or equitable circumstances; and if the court concludes that the grandparents have established the right to be heard, then it must determine if visitation is in the best interest of the grandchild" (Matter of Marchant v Marchant, 185 A.D.3d at 1036 [brackets and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Noguera v Busto, 189 A.D.3d 1050, 1051). "'A hearing to determine the issue of standing is not necessary where there are no triable issues of fact raised in the submitted papers'" (Matter of Sands v Sands, 174 A.D.3d 628, 630, quoting Matter of Broomfield v Evans, 140 A.D.3d 748, 749).
Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the maternal grandmother lacked standing to seek visitation. Under the circumstances of this case, equitable considerations did not warrant judicial intervention for the visitation she sought (see Domestic Relations Law § 72[1]; Matter of Troiano v Marotta, 127 A.D.3d 877, 878-879; Matter of Bender v Cendali, 107 A.D.3d 981, 982-983).
Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted, without a hearing, the parents' motion to dismiss the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., IANNACCI, FORD and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.