Matter of Shemeek D. v Teresa B.

Matter of Matter of Shemeek D. v Teresa B. 2011 NY Slip Op 08489 Decided on November 22, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 22, 2011
Moskowitz, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, Román JJ.
6139

[*1]In re Shemeek D., Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Teresa B., Respondent-Appellant, Keith T., et al., Respondents,




John J. Marafino, Mount Vernon, for appellant.
Joseph V. Moliterno, Scarsdale, for respondent.
Aleza Ross, Central Islip, attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Peter Kuper, Referee), entered on or about February 22, 2010, which, following a fact-finding determination of extraordinary circumstances, awarded custody of the subject child to petitioner paternal aunt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent mother argues that the court did not conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the custody petition because she did not testify in that proceeding. However, the record reflects that respondent's counsel consented to rest on the record after petitioner testified and the court conducted an in camera interview with the child. Thus, respondent failed to preserve her objection (see Matter of Jayden C. [Michelle R.], 82 AD3d 674, 675 [2011]).

In any event, if the court erred in failing to permit respondent to present additional evidence, the error was harmless. Respondent conceded that she had not lived with the child since 1997 or 1998, having left him with his father and petitioner when he was two years old. During that period she admitted limited contact with him, including failing to visit at all in 2006 and 2007. Prolonged separation between a parent and child and lack of involvement in the child's life warranted a finding of extraordinary circumstances (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 546 [1976]; Matter of Iris R. v Jose R., 74 AD3d 457 [2010]). [*2]

The court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to continue to reside with petitioner in
the stable and loving environment he had known most of his life (see Bennett 40 NY2d at 551-552).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 22, 2011

CLERK