Matter of Keyevon Justice P. (Lativia Denice P.)

Matter of Matter of Keyevon Justice P. (Lativia Denice P.) 2011 NY Slip Op 08971 Decided on December 13, 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 December 13, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Acosta, Richter, JJ. 6304-
6304A

[*1]In re Keyevon Justice P., etc., and Others, Dependent Children Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc.,

and

Lativia Denice P., etc., Respondent-Appellant, Graham-Windham Services to Families and Children, Petitioner-Respondent.




Tennille M. Tatum-Evans, New York, for appellant.
Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola (Ralph R. Carrieri of
counsel), for respondent.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Rhonda
J. Panken of counsel), attorney for the children.

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about October 29, 2010 and November 1, 2010, which, upon findings of abandonment, terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject children and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence shows, among other things, that respondent had no contact with the children for two years before the filing of the petition. Under the circumstances, Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's request for a dispositional hearing after the finding of abandonment (see Matter of "Male" G., 30 AD3d 337, 338 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]). Respondent's belated argument that she is engaged in services and has an alternative plan for the children is unavailing.

Family Court properly denied the maternal grandmother's custody petition. The children [*2]had not expressed a desire to see the mother's side of the family, and the grandmother has no preemptive statutory or constitutional right to custody (Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513, 520 [1983]).

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

ENTERED: DECEMBER 13, 2011

CLERK