Horowitz v. Kelly
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Galizia v. Galizia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Broomfield v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Chifrine v. Bekker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Chifrine v. Bekker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Field v. Stamile (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Kareem W. v. Family Focus Adoption Services, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Marks v. Cascio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Hickey v. Sparta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In a proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), entered December 20, 2001, as denied, without a hearing, her petition for grandparental visitation. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, entered February 26, 2002, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination (see CPLR 5517 [b]).
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered December 20, 2001, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered February 26, 2002, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered February 26, 2002, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent Denise Kelly is awarded one bill of costs.
Since the parents of the child who is the subject of this visitation proceeding are living, the petitioner, the child’s paternal grandmother, was required to establish that she had standing by demonstrating that circumstances exist under which “equity would see fit to intervene” (Domestic Relations Law § 72; see Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178). Under the circumstances of this case as they currently exist, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that equitable considerations warrant judicial intervention for the increased visitation she seeks. Consequently, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition without a hearing. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.