essential part inquiry in New York

2025An essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship ( see Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E. , 78 NY2d 178, 182 ). "'In cases where the relationship between the grandparent and grandchild has been frustrated by a parent, the grandparent must show, inter alia, that he or she has made a sufficient effort to establish a relationship with the child, so that the court perceives the matter as one deserving the court's intervention'" ( Matter of Kushner v Askinazi , 209 AD3d at 737 [alterations omitted], quoting Matter of Kelly v Cairo , 209 AD3d 964 , 9

2020"In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based upon circumstances show[ing] that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene' (Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]), an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship,' among other factors" ( Matter of Lipton v Lipton , 98 AD3d 621, 621 , quoting Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E. , 78 NY2d 178, 182 ).

2023"In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based upon circumstances showing that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene, an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship, among other factors" ( Matter of Lipton v Lipton , 98 AD3d 621, 621 [alterations, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sands v Sands , 174 AD3d at 629; Matter of Moskowitz v Moskowitz , 128 AD3d 1070, 1070 ).

2020"In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based upon circumstances show[ing] that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene' (Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]), an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship,' among other factors" ( Matter of Lipton v Lipton , 98 AD3d 621, 621 , quoting Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E. , 78 NY2d 178, 182 ).

2017The court must also consider “ ‘the nature and basis of the parents’ objection to visitation’ ” (Matter of Bender v Cendali, 107 AD3d 981, 982 [2013], quoting Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d at 182 ).

2017The court must also consider “ ‘the nature and basis of the parents’ objection to visitation’ ” (Matter of Bender v Cendali, 107 AD3d 981, 982 [2013], quoting Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d at 182 ; see Matter of Brancato v Federico, 118 AD3d at 986 ).

2023"In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based upon circumstances showing that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene, an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship, among other factors" ( Matter of Lipton v Lipton , 98 AD3d 621, 621 [alterations, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Sands v Sands , 174 AD3d at 629; Matter of Moskowitz v Moskowitz , 128 AD3d 1070, 1070 ).

2020"In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based upon 'circumstances show[ing] that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene' (Domestic Relations Law § 72[1]), 'an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship,' among other factors" ( Matter of Lipton v Lipton , 98 AD3d 621, 621 , quoting Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E. , 78 NY2d at 182 ; see Sands v Sands , 174 AD3d at 629; Matter of Moskowitz v Moskowitz , 128 AD3d 1070, 1070 ).

2014“In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based upon ‘circumstances show[ing] that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene’ (Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]), ‘an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship,’ among other factors” (Matter of Lipton v Lipton, 98 AD3d 621, 621 [2012], quoting Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d at 182; see Matter of Agusta v Carousso, 208 AD2d 620 [1994]).

2014“In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based upon ‘circumstances show[ing] that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene’ (Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]), ‘an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship,’ among other factors” (Matter of Lipton v Lipton, 98 AD3d 621, 621 [2012], quoting Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d at 182; see Matter of Agusta v Carousso, 208 AD2d 620 [1994]).

2017The court must also consider “ ‘the nature and basis of the parents’ objection to visitation’ ” (Matter of Bender v Cendali, 107 AD3d 981, 982 [2013], quoting Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d at 182 ; see Matter of Brancato v Federico, 118 AD3d at 986 ).

2016The court must also consider “ ‘the nature and basis of the parents’ objection to visitation’ ” (Matter of Bender v Cendali, 107 AD3d 981, 982 [2013]; quoting Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d at 182 ; see Matter of Brancato v Federico, 118 AD3d at 986 ).

2007An essential part of this inquiry is whether a meaningful relationship exists between the petitioning grandparents and the child (see Matter of Weis v Rivera, supra; Matter of Principato v Lombardi, 19 AD3d 602, 603 [2005]).

2007“An essential part of this inquiry is whether a meaningful relationship exists between the petitioning grandparents and the child” (Matter of Poppe v Ruocco, supra at 609; Matter of Principato v Lombardi, 19 AD3d 602, 603 [2005]).

2006An essential part of this inquiry is whether a meaningful relationship exists between the petitioning grandparents and the child (see Matter of Ziarno v Ziarno, 285 AD2d 793 [2001]; Matter of Seymour S. v Glen S., 189 AD2d 765 [1993]; Matter of La Porte v Rivers, 144 AD2d 861 [1988]).

2005An essential part of this inquiry is whether a meaningful relationship exists between the petitioning grandparents and the children (see Matter of Ziarno v Ziarno, 285 AD2d 793 [2001]; Matter of Seymour S. v Glen S., 189 AD2d 765 [1993]; Matter of La Porte v Rivers, 144 AD2d 861 [1988]).

2025An essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship ( see Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E. , 78 NY2d 178, 182 ). "'In cases where the relationship between the grandparent and grandchild has been frustrated by a parent, the grandparent must show, inter alia, that he or she has made a sufficient effort to establish a relationship with the child, so that the court perceives the matter as one deserving the court's intervention'" ( Matter of Kushner v Askinazi , 209 AD3d at 737 [alterations omitted], quoting Matter of Kelly v Cairo , 209 AD3d 964 , 9

2020"In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation based upon circumstances show[ing] that conditions exist which equity would see fit to intervene (Domestic Relations Law § 72[1]), an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship, among other factors" ( Matter of Fitzpatrick v Fitzpatrick , 137 AD3d 784, 784 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2014In considering whether a grandparent has standing to petition for visitation rights based upon equitable circumstances, “an essential part of the inquiry is the nature and extent of the grandparent-grandchild relationship” (Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 182 [1991]), including whether the grandparent has a meaningful relationship with the child (see Matter of Feldman v Torres, 117 AD3d 1048 [2014]; Matter of Gort v Kull, 96 AD3d 842 [2012]; Matter of Waverly v Gibson, 79 AD3d 897 [2010]).

2014Contrary to the mother’s contention, in light of the paternal grandmother’s efforts to establish and maintain a relationship *832 with the subject child, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the grandmother had standing to seek visitation (see Matter of Gort v Kull, 96 AD3d 842 [2012]; Matter of Waverly v Gibson, 79 AD3d 897, 899 [2010]).

2011The local law—to the extent that it requires prior notice of defect for accidents at a Town ` parking field, beach area', etc., as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against the Town—is flatly inconsistent with the plain language of section 50-e (4) mandating that `[n]o other or further notice. . . shall be required as a condition to the commencement of an action', subject to an exception for notices of defect for six specific kinds of locations, none of which is applicable here" ( Walker, 84 NY2d at 366 [emphasis supplied]).

2011The local law — to the extent that it requires prior notice of defect for accidents at a Town ‘parking field, beach area’, etc., as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action against the Town — is flatly inconsistent with the plain language of section 50-e (4) mandating that ‘[n]o other or further notice . . . shall be required as a condition to the commencement of an action’, subject to an exception for notices of defect for six specific kinds of locations, none of which is applicable here” (Walker, 84 NY2d at 366 [emphasis supplied]).

2008Thus, the informant’s boast about being “a very big drug dealer in Washington Heights,” although not relevant for its truth, was very relevant for the effect its utterance may have had in contributing to the defendant’s fear of the informant (see People v Minor, 69 NY2d 779, 780 [1987]).

2007The Family Court’s determination concerning whether to award visitation “ ‘depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the assessments of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents’ ” (Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 35 AD3d 868, 869 [2006], quoting Maloney v Maloney, 208 AD2d 603, 603 [1994]; see Matter of McMillian v Rizzo, 31 AD3d 555, 555 [2006]).

2007The Family Court’s determination concerning whether to award visitation “ ‘depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the assessments of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents’ ” (Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 35 AD3d 868, 869 [2006], quoting Maloney v Maloney, 208 AD2d 603, 603 [1994]; see Matter of McMillian v Rizzo, 31 AD3d 555, 555 [2006]).

2007The Family Court’s determination concerning whether to award visitation “ ‘depends to a great extent upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the assessments of the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents’ ” (Matter of Thomas v Thomas, 35 AD3d 868, 869 [2006], quoting Maloney v Maloney, 208 AD2d 603, 603 [1994]; see Matter of McMillian v Rizzo, 31 AD3d 555, 555 [2006]).

2007“An essential part of this inquiry is whether a meaningful relationship exists between the petitioning grandparents and the child” (Matter of Poppe v Ruocco, supra at 609; Matter of Principato v Lombardi, 19 AD3d 602, 603 [2005]).

2004An essential part of this inquiry is whether a meaningful relationship exists between the petitioning grandparent and the children (see Matter of Ziarno v Ziarno, 285 AD2d 793 [2001]; Matter of Seymour S. v Glen S., 189 AD2d 765 [1993]; Matter of La Porte v Rivers, 144 AD2d 861 [1988]; Matter of Apker v Malchak, supra at 519), or, in cases where a parent or parents have thwarted the attempts to forge such a relationship, whether the grandparent made sufficient efforts to establish one (see Matter of Ziarno v Ziarno, supra at 794-795; Matter of Agusta v Carousso, 208 AD2d 620 [1994]).