Matter of Fondanarosa v. Grimm, 2008-01634.
| Decision Date | 27 January 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-01634. |
| Citation | 874 N.Y.S.2d 497,58 A.D.3d 840,2009 NY Slip Op 00535 |
| Parties | In the Matter of BEVERLY FONDANAROSA, Appellant, v. CARY GRIMM et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In the circumstances of this case, in order to demonstrate standing to seek visitation with her grandchildren, the grandmother was required to show that she did everything she reasonably could to establish a relationship with the grandchildren, but that her efforts were unjustifiably frustrated by the children's parents such that equity should intervene on her behalf (see Domestic Relations Law § 72; Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 181-182 [1991]; Matter of Kenderes v Norton, 22 AD3d 852 [2005]; Matter of Canales v Aulet, 295 AD2d 507 [2002]).
Here, the Family Court, applying the correct standard and considering all relevant circumstances, properly found that the grandmother had not established that she had made sufficient efforts to establish a relationship with her grandchildren, or that the parents unjustifiably frustrated those efforts. Rather, the evidence established that the grandmother made only sporadic attempts to establish a relationship with the grandchildren and that the parents exercised their right and responsibility to set the parameters for any such relationship, which parameters were unacceptable to the grandmother. Under the circumstances, therefore, the Family Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of standing (see Matter of Kenderes v Norton, 22 AD3d at 853; cf. Matter of Agusta v Carousso, 208 AD2d 620, 621-622 [1994]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Juhase
...Nostrand, 85 A.D.3d 1352, 1353, 925 N.Y.S.2d 229 [2011],lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 708, 2011 WL 4027479 [2011];Matter of Fondanarosa v. Grimm, 58 A.D.3d 840, 841, 874 N.Y.S.2d 497 [2009] ). In so holding, we are reminded that “courts should not lightly intrude on the family relationship against a ......
-
Mcavoy v. McAvoy
...(see Domestic Relations Law § 72[1] ; Matter of Galizia v. Galizia, 151 A.D.3d at 851, 56 N.Y.S.3d 529 ; Matter of Fondanarosa v. Grimm, 58 A.D.3d 840, 841, 874 N.Y.S.2d 497 ; Matter of Kenderes v. Norton, 22 A.D.3d 852, 853, 803 N.Y.S.2d 711 ; Matter of Canales v. Aulet, 295 A.D.2d 507, 74......
-
Lipton v. Lipton
...81 A.D.3d at 1118, 917 N.Y.S.2d 370;Matter of Kalkstein v. Rist, 78 A.D.3d 947, 910 N.Y.S.2d 690;see also Matter of Fondanarosa v. Grimm, 58 A.D.3d 840, 841, 874 N.Y.S.2d 497). [949 N.Y.S.2d 503] The grandfather's remaining contention is not properly before this Court, as it was raised for ......
-
Rodriguez v. Concepcion
...185 A.D.3d at 1036, 128 N.Y.S.3d 656 ; Matter of McAvoy v. McAvoy , 155 A.D.3d at 868, 63 N.Y.S.3d 703 ; Matter of Fondanarosa v. Grimm , 58 A.D.3d 840, 841, 874 N.Y.S.2d 497 ; Matter of Kenderes v. Norton , 22 A.D.3d 852, 853, 803 N.Y.S.2d 711 ; cf. Matter of Feldman v. Torres , 117 A.D.3d......