What did the court decide?

The appeals court dismissed most of the mother's appeal as moot and affirmed Family Court's finding that extraordinary circumstances existed to justify awarding custody to the petitioner.

Why is part of the appeal dismissed?

Because the child no longer lived with the petitioner and the mother and maternal aunt agreed to joint custody and shared residence, making the mother's challenge to the prior best-interest finding moot.

Who is affected by this decision?

The child, the mother (respondent), the petitioner (nonrelative who previously had custody), and the maternal aunt who now shares custody are directly affected.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Possibly, but the court affirmed the extraordinary-circumstances finding and did not grant costs; any further appeal would likely need to address that affirmed issue and follow appellate procedures.

Matter of Moses v. McFarland

Docket 164 CAF 25-00482

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

FamilyAffirmed

Filed: May 1, 2026 · 5 days ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02744
Docket: 164 CAF 25-00482

Appeal from a Family Court order awarding sole custody and primary residence to a nonrelative petitioner under Family Court Act article 6.

Summary

The Appellate Division dismissed most of an appeal by the child’s mother challenging a Family Court order that had awarded sole custody and primary residence to a nonrelative petitioner. The appeal was rendered moot after the child stopped living with the petitioner and the mother and the child's maternal aunt later agreed to an order for joint custody and shared residence. The court nonetheless reviewed and affirmed Family Court’s separate finding that extraordinary circumstances existed to justify awarding custody to the petitioner, endorsing the lower court's reasoning.

Issues Decided

Whether petitioner established extraordinary circumstances to justify awarding custody to a nonrelative over the child's parent.
Whether it was in the child's best interests for the mother to have sole custody.

Court's Reasoning

The appeal as to best interests became moot because the child no longer lived with the petitioner and the mother and aunt entered an agreed order for joint custody and shared residence. However, the court still addressed whether extraordinary circumstances existed and concluded, for the reasons given by Family Court, that the petitioner met the required showing. That determination was sufficient to support the lower court's custody decision under the applicable standards governing custody awards to nonrelatives.

Authorities Cited

Matter of Gorski v Phalen187 AD3d 1670 (4th Dept 2020)
Matter of Turner v Estate of Turner223 AD3d 744 (2d Dept 2024)
Matter of Durgala v Batrony154 AD3d 1115 (3d Dept 2017)

Parties

Petitioner: Tracy L. Moses
Respondent: India S. McFarland
Respondent: Rodney A. Richards
Attorney: Caitlin M. Connelly
Attorney: Alison Bates
Judge: Alecia J. Mazzo

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-05-01
Family Court order entered: 2023-09-26

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult family-law counsel
If a party wishes to pursue further appellate review, they should consult counsel promptly to evaluate grounds for leave to appeal and applicable deadlines.
2
Review and comply with custody order
The parties should obtain and follow the current consent order providing for joint custody and shared residency to ensure stability for the child.
3
Consider motion practice if facts changed
If circumstances materially change, a party may seek modification in Family Court; consult counsel about filing a modification petition describing changed circumstances.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appeals court dismissed most of the mother's appeal as moot and affirmed Family Court's finding that extraordinary circumstances existed to justify awarding custody to the petitioner.
Why is part of the appeal dismissed?: Because the child no longer lived with the petitioner and the mother and maternal aunt agreed to joint custody and shared residence, making the mother's challenge to the prior best-interest finding moot.
Who is affected by this decision?: The child, the mother (respondent), the petitioner (nonrelative who previously had custody), and the maternal aunt who now shares custody are directly affected.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Possibly, but the court affirmed the extraordinary-circumstances finding and did not grant costs; any further appeal would likely need to address that affirmed issue and follow appellate procedures.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of Moses v McFarland - 2026 NY Slip Op 02744

Matter of Moses v McFarland

2026 NY Slip Op 02744

May 1, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

IN THE MATTER OF TRACY L. MOSES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

INDIA S. MCFARLAND, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, AND RODNEY A. RICHARDS, RESPONDENT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on May 1, 2026

164 CAF 25-00482

Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ.

CAITLIN M. CONNELLY, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ALISON BATES, VICTOR, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Alecia J. Mazzo, J.), entered September 26, 2023, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, awarded petitioner sole custody and primary residence with respect to the subject child.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed except insofar as respondent-appellant challenges the finding of extraordinary circumstances and the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order that, inter alia, awarded petitioner, a nonrelative, sole custody and primary residence of the child who is the subject of this proceeding, respondent mother contends that petitioner failed to establish that extraordinary circumstances existed and that it was in the child's best interests for the mother to have sole custody. The Attorney for the Child, however, submitted new information to this Court before oral argument of the appeal indicating that the child no longer resides with petitioner. After oral argument of this appeal, an order was entered upon agreement of the mother and a maternal aunt of the child of joint custody and shared residency of the child. The order on consent "renders moot the [mother's] challenge to [Family C]ourt's finding regarding the child's best interests . . . , but not [her] challenge to the court's finding of extraordinary circumstances" (
Matter of Gorski v Phalen
, 187 AD3d 1670, 1671 [4th Dept 2020];
see Matter of Turner v Estate of Turner
, 223 AD3d 744, 745 [2d Dept 2024];
Matter of Durgala v Batrony
, 154 AD3d 1115, 1116-1117 [3d Dept 2017]). We therefore dismiss the appeal except insofar as the mother challenges the finding of extraordinary circumstances (
see Gorski
, 187 AD3d at

1671). For the reasons stated in the decision at Family Court, we conclude that petitioner established that extraordinary circumstances existed in this case.

Entered: May 1, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn