Lucore v. Lucore, 280 A.D.2d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Lucore v. Lucore, 280 A.D.2d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Lachenauer v. Lachenauer-Myers (nyappdiv, 2025-03-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Lachenauer v. Lachenauer-Myers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
"Affording great deference to the determination of the hearing court with its superior ability to evaluate the credibility of the testifying witnesses" ( Matter of Miner v Torres , 179 AD3d 1490, 1491 [4th Dept 2020]), we conclude that the finding of extraordinary circumstances here is supported by evidence that, inter alia, the mother put the subject child at risk when she drove while intoxicated with the child in her car, struck the child with a lacrosse stick and bit him, verbally abused the child, repeatedly sent the child to live with the step-grandmother for prolonged periods of time, an…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Ann Lucore
v.
Ann Lucore
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 7, 2001.
280 A.D.2d 959
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4193
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly awarded custody of two of respondent’s children to petitioner, the children’s grandmother. Petitioner met her burden of establishing the existence of extraordinary circumstances based on respondent’s voluntary relinquishment of the children to petitioner’s care from 1988 until 1996, together with the unstable lifestyle of respondent, the violent and abusive environments created by paramours of respondent, and the attachment of the children to petitioner (see, Matter of Michael G. B. v Angela L. B., 219 AD2d 289, 292-293). Thus, the court properly considered the best interests of the children (see, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544; see also, Matter of Pamela S. S. v Charles E., 280 AD2d 999 [decided herewith]), and the record supports the court’s determination that the best interests of the children are served by the award of custody to petitioner (see, Matter of Paul C. v Tracy C., 209 AD2d 955, 956). We have considered respondent’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, DiFlorio, J.H.O. — Custody.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.