New York Court of Appeals, 1976

Gomez v. Lozado

New York Court of Appeals · Decided September 21, 1976

40 N.Y.2d 839; 356 N.E.2d 287; 387 N.Y.S.2d 834; 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3011

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

La Croix v. Deyo (NYC Family Court 1981)
Bennett v. Jeffreys (N.Y. 1976)
La Croix v. Deyo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Milli v. Morreale (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Dickson v. Lascaris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
Wade C. v. Rachael D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
In re Sanjivini K. (N.Y. 1979)
Raysor v. Gabbey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
Pino v. Pino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
In re Patricia A. W. (NYC Family Court 1977)
In re Louis F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
Robertson v. Robertson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)

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

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Division reversed, without costs, and the proceeding remitted to the Family Court to review and conduct such additional hearings as may be advisable in light of the principles discussed in Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys (40 NY2d 543), decided herewith.

It should be noted that, in reversing, the Appellate Division affirmed expressly the findings of fact in the Family Court, finding both grandmother and father fit to have custody of the motherless child. The appellate court seems to have accorded a parental primacy which, as developed in the Bennett case (supra), is not as absolute as argued by the father. On the other hand, there are circumstances in this case which require re-evaluation by the Family Court despite its otherwise careful and thoughtful opinion. These circumstances relate to the comparative ages of the grandmother and the father, the legal inability of the grandmother to adopt the child, the fact that the child is in need of the services of a mental health clinic, and, as the grandmother testified, is doing poorly in school. The root of the child’s mental difficulties should be assessed, if that is practicable, in determining the best disposition for the child. The best interest of the child, therefore, would seem to require a greater exploration than has already been done.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.