2025 NY Slip Op 50902(U)
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Kings Cty.2025Background
- The maternal grandmother (V.T.) petitioned for visitation rights with her two grandchildren under New York Domestic Relations Law § 72.
- The children’s parents (A.S. and D.S.) opposed the petition, citing a history of estrangement, alleged emotional instability and abuse by the grandmother, and the grandmother’s marriage to a registered sex offender.
- In response, the parents moved to dismiss the visitation petition, asserting that the grandmother lacked standing and that visitation would not be in the children's best interests.
- The grandmother and her husband also moved to dismiss separate family offense petitions filed against them by the mother, stemming from an alleged sidewalk confrontation and stalking incident, which led to temporary orders of protection.
- The Family Court converted the motion to dismiss the visitation petition to a motion for summary judgment, required parties to submit all evidence in admissible form, and considered the competing motions together.
- The court ultimately granted the parents’ motion to dismiss the visitation petition and denied the grandparents’ motion to dismiss the family offense petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grandmother’s standing for visitation petition | V.T.: Substantial prior relationship with children; efforts to maintain contact. | Parents: No meaningful relationship; no recent contact; family dysfunction/estrangement. | Grandmother lacked standing; no ongoing relationship. |
| Whether parents’ objection to visitation was in children’s best interests | V.T.: Parents’ objections are pretextual, based on animosity. | Parents: Objections are genuine, relate to safety/emotional concerns and family history. | Parents’ objections presumed valid; no triable issue of fact raised. |
| Summary judgment standard and burden-shifting in grandparent visitation | V.T.: Presumption too strong, requests hearing, parents should bear burden. | Parents: Satisfied burden with well-founded objections. | Burden shifted to V.T.; she failed to raise triable fact issue. |
| Dismissal of family offense petitions against grandparents | Grandparents: Deny wrongdoing, deny any family offenses. | Mother: Detailed allegations of stalking, harassment, supported by video, statements. | Triable issues of fact exist; dismissal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Emanuel S. v. Joseph E., 78 N.Y.2d 178 (N.Y. 1991) (establishes two-step inquiry for grandparent visitation: standing and best interests; discusses equitable circumstances requirement)
- Lo Presti v. Lo Presti, 40 N.Y.2d 522 (N.Y. 1976) (clarifies grandparent visitation statute offers no automatic right, courts must evaluate animosity and best interests)
- People ex rel. Sibley v. Sheppard, 54 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1981) (recognizes constitutional implications of parental rights versus state’s parens patriae role)
- Matter of E.S. v. P.D., 8 N.Y.3d 150 (N.Y. 2007) (addresses the constitutionality of New York’s grandparent visitation statute after Troxel, enforces strong presumption in favor of fit parents’ decisions)