From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shemeek D. v. Teresa B.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 22, 2011
89 A.D.3d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-22

In re SHEMEEK D., Petitioner–Respondent, v. TERESA B., Respondent–Appellant,Keith T., et al., Respondents.

John J. Marafino, Mount Vernon, for appellant. Joseph V. Moliterno, Scarsdale, for respondent.


John J. Marafino, Mount Vernon, for appellant. Joseph V. Moliterno, Scarsdale, for respondent. Aleza Ross, Central Islip, attorney for the child.MOSKOWITZ, J.P., RENWICK, DeGRASSE, ABDUS–SALAAM, ROMÁN JJ.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Peter Kuper, Referee), entered on or about February 22, 2010, which, following a fact-finding determination of extraordinary circumstances, awarded custody of the subject child to petitioner paternal aunt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent mother argues that the court did not conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the custody petition because she did not testify in that proceeding. However, the record reflects that respondent's counsel consented to rest on the record after petitioner testified and the court conducted an in camera interview with the child. Thus, respondent failed to preserve her objection ( see Matter of Jayden C. [Michelle R.], 82 A.D.3d 674, 675, 923 N.Y.S.2d 1 [2011] ).

In any event, if the court erred in failing to permit respondent to present additional evidence, the error was harmless. Respondent conceded that she had not lived with the child since 1997 or 1998, having left him with his father and petitioner when he was two years old. During that period she admitted limited contact with him, including failing to visit at all in 2006 and 2007. Prolonged separation between a parent and child and lack of involvement in the child's life warranted a finding of extraordinary circumstances ( see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 N.Y.2d 543, 546, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277 [1976]; Matter of Iris R. v. Jose R., 74 A.D.3d 457, 902 N.Y.S.2d 519 [2010] ).

The court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to continue to reside with petitioner in the stable and loving environment he had known most of his life ( see Bennett, 40 N.Y.2d at 551–552, 387 N.Y.S.2d 821, 356 N.E.2d 277).


Summaries of

Shemeek D. v. Teresa B.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Nov 22, 2011
89 A.D.3d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Shemeek D. v. Teresa B.

Case Details

Full title:In re SHEMEEK D., Petitioner–Respondent, v. TERESA B.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 22, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
933 N.Y.S.2d 35
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8489

Citing Cases

Shoshanah B. v. Lela G.

Moreover, respondent's decision to promptly engage the child in therapy was consistent with the…

Maherly M. v. Robert R.

It has also been found that lack of involvement in the child's life may warrant a finding of extraordinary…