Peter D. Barlet, Warwick, N.Y., for appellant.
Karen M. Jansen, White Plains, N.Y., attorney for the child.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Lori Currier Woods, J.), dated January 14, 2014. The order granted a petition pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In 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 N.Y.2d 178, 182, 573 N.Y.S.2d 36, 577 N.E.2d 27 ), including whether the grandparent has a meaningful relationship with the child (see Matter of Feldman v. Torres, 117 A.D.3d 1048, 986 N.Y.S.2d 565 ; Matter of Gort v. Kull, 96 A.D.3d 842, 949 N.Y.S.2d 62 ; Matter of Waverly v. Gibson, 79 A.D.3d 897, 912 N.Y.S.2d 681 ).
Contrary to the mother's contention, in light of the paternal grandmother's efforts to establish and maintain a relationship
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 A.D.3d 842, 949 N.Y.S.2d 62 ; Matter of Waverly v. Gibson, 79 A.D.3d 897, 899, 912 N.Y.S.2d 681 ).
The Family Court also providently exercised its discretion in determining that it was in the best interests of the subject child to grant the paternal grandmother's petition for visitation with the child (see Matter of Gort v. Kull, 96 A.D.3d 842, 949 N.Y.S.2d 62 ).
The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.
HALL, J.P., COHEN, HINDS–RADIX and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.