Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005

Marks v. Cascio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 12, 2005

24 A.D.3d 556; 808 N.Y.S.2d 261

Cases that cite this one

9 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)
Matter of Moskowitz v. Moskowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
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)
Roberts v. Roberts (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)
Lynda D. v. Stacy C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Tolbert v. Scott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

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 for grandparent visitation, the parents appeal, by permission, as limited by their brief, from so müch of an order of the Family *557Court, Suffolk County (James, R.), dated February 22, 2005, as denied that branch of their motion which was to dismiss the paternal grandmother’s petition without a hearing.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the branch of the motion which was to dismiss the paternal grandmother’s petition without a hearing is granted.

In considering whether a grandparent is entitled to visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 72 where both parents are alive, the Family Court must determine, first, whether equitable circumstances exist which provide the grandparent with standing and, if such circumstances exist, whether visitation would be in the grandchild’s best interest (see Domestic Relations Law § 72; Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 181 [1991]; Matter of Knight v Griffith, 13 AD3d 449 [2004]; Matter of Horowitz v Kelly, 300 AD2d 659 [2002]). Under the particular circumstances of this case, a hearing was not necessary to determine whether the grandmother had the requisite standing. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.