Matter of Natasha Latoya T-M. v Michael Devonne M.

Matter of Matter of Natasha Latoya T-M. v Michael Devonne M. 2011 NY Slip Op 09172 Decided on December 20, 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 20, 2011
Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny, Román JJ.



6381


[*1]In re Natasha Latoya T-M.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

-against-


v

Michael Devonne M.,

Respondent,

Administration for Children

Services of the State of New York,

Respondent-Respondent.



Anne Reiniger, New York, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel), for ACS, respondent.
Karen Freedman, Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Michael D. Scherz of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about May 21, 2009, which, inter alia, denied the petition for custody of the subject child and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"It is well established that in reviewing...custody issues, deference is to be accorded to the determination rendered by the factfinder, unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record" (Yolanda R. v Eugene I.G., 38 AD3d 288, 289 [2007]). Here, in denying the petition, the court properly considered the child's best interests in finding that there existed sufficient evidence of extraordinary circumstances, including petitioner mother's minimal contact with the child over several years and her inability to provide and safeguard the child's mental and developmental needs (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543 [1976]). There exists no basis to disturb the court's determination that the child should remain with his paternal grandmother, who had provided him with a stable and nurturing home in the preceding years.

We have considered the mother's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

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

ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2011 [*2]

CLERK